Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2023

1927 Sherlock Holmes stories

The following discussion is closed:

Undeleted as requested, and then scan-backed. Closing early since this should be entirely non-controversial (feel free to open a separate discussion if there are other issues that need addressing).

It appears a user posted the last published Sherlock Holmes stories that are in the public domain in the U.S. at The Adventure of the Veiled Lodger and The Adventure of Shoscombe Old Place in 2007 or earlier. Can an admin undelete them for checking please? Thank you! Hekerui (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Done with some tags etc. added to them. I undeleted these to aid in any attempt at scan-backing it. These undeleted versions should by no means be considered a finished product, as in 2004-2007 the ProofreadPage extension did not exist, so there was no way for them to scan-back the short stories at that time. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

And they—along with The Adventure of the Retired Colourman—have now been scan-backed along with the rest of The Case Book of Sherlock Holmes. --Xover (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Index:Armistice_Day.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Undeleted / unredacted as the relevant copyright has now expired.

Re-opening - Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2014-01#Index:Armistice_Day.djvu as it's a 1927 work, in which US copyright in the disputed portions has now expired. Are we able to reinstate the redacted portions with a view to putting this in the Monthly Challange to complete quickly? 88.97.96.89 12:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

See also: Index talk:Armistice Day.djvu 88.97.96.89 12:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The file has been un-redacted at Commons. Are any further actions required? Xover (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Revalidation of the Reinstated portions, I already reinstates the Page: s concerned, and updated the transcriptions they were used in. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

All restored pages have now been reverted to their validated revision. Xover (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The Shadow Out of Time

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as probable copyvio. Any theory leading to this text being PD before 2032 depends on knowledge of contractual terms that are unlikely to come to light absent a full court case on this specific issue.

It seems that this is another Lovecraft published in an issue of Astounding Stories (Vol. 17, No. 4) that had the issue serial renewed per [1]. However, there is no renewal for the individual Lovecraft stories. Does the lack of a renewal for H.P. Lovecraft and evidence of renewal of other stories published in the serial indicate that individual authors retained copyright control over stories published in Astounding Stories? Languageseeker (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I note that it has been tagged "PD-US-no-renewal-unvested". I don't understand the copyright rules well enough to know what that means. -- Beardo (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

My two cents: 1. It is unlikely we will know for sure the contract status for sure about the rights transfer for Astounding Stories. Most immediate attention focuses on Weird Tales and without knowing the contracts it would be pure speculation to know what the agreement was. I would personally default to assuming they were transferred rather than Lovecraft fighting to retain them. 2. Looking into the history of that tag I find Wikisource:Copyright_discussions/Archives/2012-09#Undelete_assorted_pulp_fiction_works_(PD-US-not-vested) and nothing is at all clear to follow (that thread talks about them dying and the renewal responsibilities reverting to the estates rather than the magazines). This seems to be the right mix of both lack of evidence (exactly the details of the various contracts) and copyright law (around the whole magazine vs. the original stories, the estate vs. the publisher etc.) that absent a court case the only real resolution will be when the rights expire ....MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Note that since the letter-of-the-law reading here leads to absurd results (authors' heirs and publishers losing copyright even though they did everything correctly) it is very likely that a full test of this in the courts would lead to case law closing this loophole. The courts generally don't like "gotcha" law like this, and the intent of the legislators was clearly to protect authors which this loophole defeats. From what little I've dug on this it seems a valid argument (absent that hypothetical case law), but we definitely should not rely too much on it (volume, or high-profile works, or works with known litigious estates/publishers).

But you are of course correct that since we don't have reliable information on the contracts, only a court case that addresses specifically the text we are interested in could give us the basis for employing this loophole in the first place. We can probably count the number of texts this applies to on the fingers of one hand, if it applies to any at all. Xover (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Kde domov můj (unsourced translation)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as potential copyvio.

While we have several sourced and scan-backed public domain translations of this Czech national anthem, this one is not only unsourced, but with unknown translation copyright. Google finds this translation only in texts dated to the late 20th century or later, which suggests that it is still copyrighted. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction

The following discussion is closed:

The work is still in copyright and can't be hosted.

Hi, This is another publication by the Foreign Technology Division of the US Air Force. However the Russian author seems to be still alive. What's the copyright status of the English translation ([2], [3])? There is also no notice. The original work is not in the public domain, so this probably can't be uploaded to Commons. However this translation seems to be in the public domain. Could it be uploaded here? Thanks, Yann (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

If the original is copyrighted, the translation will preserve that copyright. w:Copyright law of the Soviet Union#Accession to the UCC in 1973 points out that Soviet works pre-1973 were not copyrighted in the US until after the breakup of the Soviet Union and the signing of the Berne Convention, so it was legal at the time the translation was made, but post URAA, it's not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah OK. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Book of Common Prayer (ECUSA)

The following discussion is closed:

kept - insufficient rationale for deletion; no consensus to delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Although the ECUSA has been very clear that this work as a whole is in the public domain, nevertheless it includes a significant amount of text by ICEL and other sources which are very much NOT in the public domain. While these passages are included in the BCP with permission and/or under Fair Use doctrine, nevertheless they are not appropriate for Wikisource.

Due to the large number and size of these passages, as well as the difficulty of distinguishing them from other parts of this work, I recommend deletion of the whole work, and focus on Book of Common Prayer (1892) as a replacement. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. This book is completed, unlike the 1892 copy, and is quite clearly in the public domain, as the note at the top of the page states. I don’t know how you can doubt such an unequivocal expression as “is not and never has been under copyright.” TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
• Questions for @Beleg Tâl and @TE(æ)A,ea. It looks like the 2007 work is a rework of the 1979 work. Anything published in the US in or after 1978 is automatically copyrighted. I see claims on Book of Common Prayer (ECUSA) that the copyright has been released, but I don’t see anything in the book scans that show a copyright release. Please clarify (both of you) your source for claiming all or part of this work is PD. Jeepday (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Jeepday: There is a message in the “notes” on the header on the page to that effect: what more do you want? There is clear, direct statement that Wikisource can host it; what more do you want? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
    • TE(æ)A,ea. assuming that the opening message from "Charles Wohlers" is someone who is authorized to speak for the work. If it was published in 1979 and/or 2007 in the US it is/was copyrighted (unless it also had a PD claim) so the statement "The U S Book of Common Prayer is not and never has been under copyright." is not accurate. If you have something showing the 1979 was in the public domain when published, that would support the argument that the 2007 is PD as well. But a note from someone is not listed in the publication, and is making a statement this not supported by evidence does not support the 2007 work as PD. Jeepday (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Opps I had that backwards, have been out of the loop for a while. Help:Public_domain#Published_in_the_United_States in 1979 copyright was not automatic, you needed to actively claim copyright. The 2007 verision is still questionable until we verify the copyright status of the 1979 version. Jeepday (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
        • Jeepday: Mr. Wohlers is the man who created the 2007 ECUSA edition of the Book of Common Prayer; no man could be more authorized to speak on the matter. According to the notes, the 2007 revision only changes some factual matters, and not the text of the Book, such items not being included in the work in any case. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

 Comment I don't see this discussion addressing post-1989 additions of parts from ICEL and others. Pre-1989 inactivity regarding copyright (which is what the purported email from Wohler expresses) may have led to PD no-notice/no-renewal, but after 1989 such materials need an explicit license from the copyright holder (which will not be Wohler). Xover (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

File:MU KPB 033 Rubiat of Omar Rayyam.pdf and File:MU KPB 034 Parsifal.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

PD in the US. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

These files were transfered from Wikimedia Commons, as it is believed that they are U.K. works which are in the public domain in the United States (see this discussion). If they are U.K. works, then they are unsuitable for hosting on Wikimedia Commons; if they are not, owing to simultaneous publication in the U.S., then they may be exported back. The Rubáiyát (misspelled in the file name: also “Rayyam” instead of “Khayyam”) is listed at being published in 1909, but I have not found any internal or external information to verify that date. Parsifal is given as 1921 in the file, but 1912 on his Wikipedia article. Based on those dates, these works are in the public domain in the U.S. The books are illustrated by Willy Pogány; I have ordered a book describing his work, in the hope that it will have some more detailed bibliographical information. I also ask for the services of Xover, whose searchings through newspaper archives have helped in earlier discussions. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

 Keep These works are {{PD-US}} we can host them. The UK copyright is irrelevant for works hosted at enWS. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that it is overly worth the fuss of drilling further, that is more a discussion for Commons. We can host them, and if in dispute there, don't kill yourself over it. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

CC BY-SA 4.0 texts?

The following discussion is closed:

Conversation concluded. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I have noticed that The Scrum Guide (2020), which is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0, has been added to the main page. Wikipedia FAQ states that this license is not compatible with Wikipedia. I've looked at the Wikisource help page and copyright policy, and both say that text must be compatible with CC BY-SA 3.0, which rules out the newer version. However, the copyright tags page lists the CC BY-SA 4.0 as one of the possible licenses. What is the official policy of Wikisource on CC BY-SA 4.0 texts? Alnaling (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Speaking as the person who added this text, my understanding of the licensing policy is that anything that permits "free use, distribution, and creation of derivatives", even in terms of commercial use, is fine per our copyright policy. I wouldn't say that CC-BY-SA 4.0 is incompatible with CC BY-SA 3.0 in this way. We have had a longstanding CC-BY-SA 4.0 template and a long history of works being transcribed that are under this license, so without change to current licensing consensus I don't think they will be disallowed. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull I agree that CC BY-SA 4.0 is a free license and in that sense it is fine per copyright policy, however, the license compatibility is also an important aspect. For example, the {{GFDL}} tag states that it "must also be dual-licensed with another compatible license" (see Free as in Freedom for an example). Moreover the Terms of Use state that "You may import text [...] available under terms that are compatible with the CC BY-SA 3.0 license (or, as explained above, another license when exceptionally required by the Project edition or feature)("CC BY-SA").". If this project uses another license, then it should be clearly stated, but the footer of the page still links to CC BY-SA 3.0.

As a side note, I also think that CC BY-SA 4.0 texts should be allowed, but if they have to be removed due to legal technicalities it should be done sooner than later to avoid wasted work. Alnaling (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Alnaling (CC PseudoSkull): Thanks for bringing this up! We have over the years dedicated far too little attention to details like this, and our guidance and policies are therefore somewhat lacking.

I have struggled to find the cycles to actually look into this issue—in particular, what the differences between 3.0 and 4.0 are that makes WMF Legal say they are incompatible—but there is one clarifying distinction I can make based on a superficial approach: on Wikipedia, all content is collaborative and potentially copyrightable (article content, say), but on Wikisource almost all our mainspace content is by design not actually copyrightable and subject to licensing. The point of the project is to faithfully reproduce previously published textual works, so anything we did that could attract copyright (and thus be subject to licensing) would no longer be faithful to the original. Because of that, the CC BY-SA 3.0 + GFDL default license for contributions never comes into play for our mainspace content, and it doesn't matter what "upstream" license that content is under so long as it is otherwise free.

Outside mainspace (i.e Wikisource:, User:, Help:, etc.) we are more similar to Wikipedia, but in these places it is very rare that we have need to import any external text (except templates and such from other WMF projects) and so an incompatibility with CC BY-SA 4.0 is almost never going to be relevant. Where we do have a potential issue is with our content namespaces were we permit non-faithful / user generated content: Translation: and Portal:. So far we only have (that I have noticed) translations based on public domain originals, and no portals with actually copyrightable elements (lists of facts). But here we could eventually run into this issue.

We really should make these distinctions explicit in our guidance and policies because sooner or later it is going to bite us. Especially our failure to directly address the GFDL deprecation a few years ago has given us a potentially massive content headache that we've so far mainly closed our eyes to and pretended doesn't exist. Xover (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Xover: Thanks for the detailed reply.

Regarding the incompatibility between CC BY-SA 4.0 and 3.0, I've looked into the text and in 3.b.1 it says that the adapted material must be shared under the same license "this version or later, or a BY-SA Compatible License". Since 3.0 is not a later version and not listed as BY-SA compatible this means that the content cannot be redistributed under this license, hence incompatibility.

I'm not sure I follow your point about the reproduced content being "not actually copyrightable". If I understand correctly, redistributing a faithfully reproduced text is still subject to licensing, regardless of whether we consider translating it to Wikimedia format a transformative act or not. Naturally if the license is free, it allows us to do so. The question is whether we can do this using WMF servers, since its Terms of Use seem to only allow text content compatible with CC BY-SA 3.0 (though I'd like to someone more informed to confirm this). I agree that the reproduced text will probably not be mixed with other user generated content, so it might be possible for WMF to introduce an exception for WS given the boundaries between reproduced free content and user generated content are clearly defined.

I've also noticed that exported books contain an about section that states that they may be used under the CC BY-SA 3.0 + GFDL license, which is also untrue in case of CC BY-SA 4.0 (and even 3.0 only) texts, so this should also be updated if the current licensing consensus doesn't change. Alnaling (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Early Christian Prayers

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

1961 published work, with copyright notice on p. 3, no way that this can be hosted. Numbers of pages to be deleted.

• Index:Hamman Prayers.pdf
• special:prefixindex/Page:Hamman Prayers.pdf

— billinghurst sDrewth 04:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. No renewal notice. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
•  Delete The US edition looks to be a reprint of a UK work, with the translation copyright vested in the publisher (Longmans). The UK copyright thus lasts until at least 2031 (could be longer if the actual translator is identified, in which case pub. +70 becomes pma. 70). It was thus in copyright at home on the URAA date, and is in copyright in the US until 1961 + 95 = 2056. --Xover (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Xover: What evidence do you have of this being a reprint, rather than simultaneously published? Based on the title and copyright pages, this was published simultaneously in the U.S. and the U.K. (with a U.S. copyright notice, which copyright was not renewed). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

    The internal evidence of the title page and colophon. I said it looks like a US reprint of a UK work, not that it is. Simultaneous publication requires publication in the US to happen no later than thirty days after UK publication, so even if one were to assume it's not a reprint we'd need to identify the specific dates on which it was published in each country. Xover (talk) 09:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: This is apparently a translation of the French work Prières des premiers chrétiens, edited by A. Hamman and published in 1952 (OCLC:6152568^{all editions}; see a review in Revue des Sciences Religieuses). Has this underlying copyright expired? Shells-shells (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  Since Adalbert Hamman died in 2000 and France is pma. 70… No. :) Xover (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Niger-related documents

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. These are modern forgeries of indeterminate provenance and no plausible claim to compatible licensing.

Some research help needed with these. These appear to be an eclectic collection of documents related to someone's pet government conspiracy (possibly genuine government shadyness, not mere conspiracy theory) back in 2007. Some of them may be PD through some mechanism, but 1) they are all modern ca. 2002, 2) appear to be produced by non-US entities, and 3) if they are Nigerien government documents there is no copyright exception in Niger as there is for PD-USGov. Some of these are used for translations or transcriptions (which will have the same copyright as the files).

• File:Niger Code Book.jpg
• File:Niger Document 01 (Telex 1).jpg
• File:Niger Document 01 (Telex 2).jpg
• File:Niger Document 01.jpg
• File:Niger Document 02 (Panorama Version).jpg
• File:Niger Document 02 (Repubblica Version).JPG
• File:Niger Document 03 pg 1.jpg
• File:Niger Document 03 pg 2.jpg
• File:Niger Document 04 (Panorama Version).jpg
• File:Niger Document 04 (Repubblica Version).JPG
• File:Niger Document 05 pg 1.jpg
• File:Niger Document 05 pg 2.jpg
• File:Niger Document 05 pg 3.jpg
• File:Niger Document 06 (a).jpg
• File:Niger Document 06 (b).jpg
• File:Niger Document 07.jpg
• File:Niger Document 08 pg 1.jpg
• File:Niger Document 08 pg 2.jpg
• File:Niger Document 08 pg 3.jpg
• File:Niger Document Code A pg 1.JPG
• File:Niger Document Code A pg 2.JPG
• File:Niger Document Code B pg 1.JPG
• File:Niger Document Code B pg 2.JPG

My hunch from a quick scan is that these are pretty likely to be copyvios, but not enough that I'm willing to speedy them without looking them much more closely than I have time for right now. Xover (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• Xover: I took the liberty of correcting the name of the country—you confused Niger and Nigeria. In any case, these are the w:Niger uranium forgeries, which are fake documents which purport to be real government productions. (Incidentally, the translations have been freely licensed, but that’s besides the point.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks! And apologies for the confusion. Xover (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete. We don't need fake documents anyway. Yann (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  Even "fake" documents can have historical importance. Medieval beastiaries depicting unicorns and describing fantastical plants with invisible seeds still have value as a document. Some famous forgeries have had huge historical impact. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Template:PD-Disavowed

The following discussion is closed:

Redirected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned in a previous discussion on this page, this template is pretty much legal nonsense. Is there any way to fix it and retain the affected works? The works primarily affected by this template are Instruction and Advice for the Young Bride, a work that purports to have been written in 1894 but which is believed by many to be a 1964 hoax; and the writings of the Zodiac Killer (fl. 1968-1969) whose identity is not known. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The Zodiac Killer letters are all scan-backed and have various licenses on Commons; they might be hostable under {{PD-US-no-notice}} since they were published before 1977. I have no idea how this would be affected by the fact that the letters were published in newspapers and police files, and not all of them with the consent of the author. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• The Instruction falls under this restriction quite readily; for the Zodiac Killer letters, they are probably considered “published;” but are likely under this doctrine, as well. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the "published without consent of the author." They were sent to newspapers with the clear intent to be published, but were not published with the correct copyright notice / registration. For more recent works where registration isn't an issue we can get into this debate when it happens, but I don't understand why we would say a letter to the editor printed in 1905 is under copyright because the author didn't consent to have it published when he or she mailed it to the newspaper by signing an explicit consent to publish statement. You mail letters to newspapers to have them published! MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Publication without consent does not happen with letters to the editor—they are intended to be published, even if most are not published, and become subject to “general publication” restrictions when published in newspapers. The letters were sent and published without copyright notices, and are thus ineligible for copyright protection. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
    • "published without consent of the author" - I am referring to the minority of letters which were not sent to newspapers but which were reported in newspapers anyway, e.g. Zodiac Killer letter, December 20th 1969 or Zodiac Killer letter, September 27th 1969 or Zodiac Killer letter, December 1966 —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: I can see the argument for "implicit consent" in the sense that if you're going to commit a serious crime like that, you probably know full well that if you ever get caught and evidence is obtained, the evidence will be published in news reports and the like, because the news reports on that sort of stuff all the time; it's their primary source of income. I'd think that's just common sense; even for the most insane of criminals I'd expect they know this. That's not necessarily a legal argument on my part, but just a comment on the psychological bit of it that I'd like to leave here. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes for sure, and I have no moral qualms about disseminating these works freely online; but I also have to uphold our copyright policies, and I don't understand the legal ramifications of such a circumstance well enough to determine whether Wikisource can be the place where such texts are hosted. Fortunately, most of the works in question should be well handled by lack of copyright notice. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support Deletion. Instruction and the Zodiac letters to the newspapers / public officials should all be tagged {{PD-US-no-notice}} since they were published pre-1989 with no notice or registration within 5 years. Any remaining works we should discuss individually. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: According to what we have transcribed at Instruction and Advice for the Young Bride (assuming it is correct; it is unfortunately not scan-backed), this would fall into the public domain for one of two reasons: 1.) It was actually published in 1894, and therefore is in the public domain for being so old. 2.) It was published in 1964 without a proper copyright notice—assuming in this case it is a hoax, the copyright notice of 1894 doesn't count since it is decades off the actual publication date. To retain a copyright, it would have needed a stated copyright date of 1964. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  Should we separately discuss which works to delete? I see several transclusions at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-Disavowed.--Jusjih (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Here is a list of all the works with my comments:
  • The Wiccan Rede: mentioned source is Green Egg (1975) IA which was published with copyright notice claimed over entire contents. 1974 Earth Religion News is another possible source. Published in the US but unclear whether the claimed copyright is valid. If not, then these would be PD-no notice, if so then it would be copyrighted until 95 years.
  • Instruction and Advice for the Young Bride: mention about either 1894 (PD-old) or 1964 publication (PD-no-notice). Earliest link to published source is from 1989 (which would be copyrighted without notice). Ideally, find a version to verify the 1964 publication as a source.
  • Zodiac letters mailed to the Chronicle, Channel 9. These seem to me clear cases of PD-no notice as mailing to a newspaper which then published them without copyright claim.
  • Other Zodiac communications, need to determine whether published (and then no notice) or not (in which case copyright for 120 years).
  • Leopold and Loeb's ransom note for Bobby Franks: either contemporaneous publication which would have expired or it is unpublished anonymous work (and hence copyrighted until 2045 (120 years after publication).

MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I!d add Dossiers secrets d'Henri Lobineau it is a blank page just including disscusion of weather it is in copyirght —unsigned comment by 118.210.117.43 (talk) .

Agreed. This page has essentially no content, and whatever discussion took place then is clearly done as of now, as it started ~ 14 years ago. I was actually inclined to speedy it until I saw how long it has been there as it is. @MarkLSteadman: What is your opinion on that work's copyright status? PseudoSkull (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I had speedied it before I read PseudoSkull’s comment. If anybody desires to see it, I will renew it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

My sense on the French work possibilities published abroad before 1977 means that the key question is whether it was copyrighted in France on the URAA date (which would imply publication +95 years):

• If the copyright lies with the two forgers than the French copyright expire 70 years after the death of Plantard (2070) so past the URAA
• If the work is considered pseudonymous then they are in the French public domain (2017) but after the URAA date
• If the work is considered posthumous then it expired 25 years after publication (1992) which is before the URAA date. It would then be in the public domain
• I highly doubt simultaneous publication in the US so we can ignore that case.

My take is that we consider it pseudonymous which means the US copyright expires 95 years after publication with the French copyright expired. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I have replaced the Template with a redirect to {{PD-US-no-notice}}. If there are any pages using the template for which this is not the correct choice, please substitute the correct template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Index:Gandhi - Young India, v. 5, 1923.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

File moved to enWS and deleted at Commons. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Issue in this volume list a different editor, "C. Rajagopalchar" possibly (C._Rajagopalachari) who died in 1972, thus their works are not necessarily out of copyright in India applying a 60 pma term.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

It is not clear if the copyright was counted from the date of publication, as a collective work, as from the death date of the authors and the editor. But whatever is the copyright status in India, this is in the public domain in USA, which is sufficient for Wikisource. Yann (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Is this a request for localization if necessary? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

It is. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I asked on Commons for more opinions. Yann (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Answers there say, the editor has no bearing on the copyright status, only the author has. Yann (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Being the editor does not magically invalidate your copyright; the question is whether you have contributed something that is eligible for copyright protection. This could be the selection of content in a collection, but more often it will be forewords and other contributions for which the person acting as editor is the author. What the discussion on Commons pointed out was that the editor is here credited as author of several parts of this collective work, and as such their pma. term of copyright is relevant. The same is the case for any other contributor—of which there appear to be many—whose vital years and pma.-based terms of protection will have to be determined.

In addition, the publication date on the Index and File description pages is incorrect: this edition was published in 1981, not 1923. As such we will also need to determine what parts of this were first published in 1923 (PD in the US) and what, if any, were first published in 1981 (in copyright in the US for a good long while).

In any case, it seems probable this cannot be hosted on Commons. Whether it can be hosted on enWS needs more investigation. Xover (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

This answer was added after my last post above. This is a facsimile of the 1923 edition. I will move it to WS. Yann (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Upload failed on WS. I will try again later, but this is a recurrent bug. Yann (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Finally I managed to reduce the file size (150 dpi) from 1.2 GB to 200 MB, so that it can be uploaded, and I created a DjVu: File:Gandhi - Young India, v. 5, 1923.djvu. File deleted on Commons. Yann (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Yann (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Index:PTC 220 MHz Radio- Union Pacific Locomotive 5802 GE C44-9-AC-CTE Locomotive Noise Test Battery Report, June 2012 - DPLA - a614136d0d964d8a2e28c68e2cc5075e.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

File deleted at Commons, for details see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:PTC 220 MHz Radio- Union Pacific Locomotive 5802 GE C44-9-AC-CTE Locomotive Noise Test Battery Report, June 2012 - DPLA - a614136d0d964d8a2e28c68e2cc5075e.pdf. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Metadata is wrong at Commons. This is a 2012 report, and the license given on page 2 is at odds with the generic PD claim made. I'm assuming a lot of good faith by the uploader (given it's an institutional upload), but as has happened with IA uploads for example, sometimes digging a little deeper on specific works is needed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

• Note: As this work is the subject of an on-going deletion discussion on Commons I am leaving this thread open, more as a bookmark than anything else. --Xover (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  Index deleted after the file had been deleted at Commons. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Address by President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy to both Houses of Parliament of the United Kingdom

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, incompatible license. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The page was nominated for speedy deletion by User:TE(æ)A,ea. with the rationale that it had been deleted in Commons because although originally released under CC-BY-4.0, it was later downgraded to CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0. For details see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Address by President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy to both Houses of Parliament of the United Kingdom 3.jpg. However, I can see some reasons worth of further discussion:

1) IMO once released under a free license, we do not have to accept later downgrading. In fact CC licences are not revocable, specifically the text of CC-BY-4.0 contains the following notice: The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. So I do wonder that the Commons admin has deleted the file, because similar requests have usually been declined as far as I know.

2) I am also not sure whether our {{PD-EdictGov}} could be applied here instead. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Jan Kameníček: The reason for the deletion on Commons (and for my nomination here) relates to timing. All Ukraine government works are released under a certain license, which used to be CC BY 4.0, but is now CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. From my understanding, that change in the license occurred in December 2022, and the speech here was delivered in February 2023, after the change in license. Thus, this was only ever released under the new (incompatible) license, and it was for that reason deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Delete It isn't an edict of UA govt, and the licensing timing and the use of the current license seems to be in error, so not able to be hosted here. I would agree that it should be discussed rather than speedied. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I checked that it appears the text wasn't published in Hansard. It is available on the UK Parliament's official YouTube channel but that isn't covered by the Open Parliamentary License so I don't think it's available from the UK side, so deletion from Commons seems appropriate as it is not freely licensed under UK law. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Index:Three a Day- Children Having Children in Alaska (IA threedaychildren00week).pdf and linked file..

The following discussion is closed:

File deleted on Commons, index deleted by Billinghurst. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Work of a US State Government , not necessarily a Federal agency or employee. I don't see a copyright notice though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Note that it is produced by the legislature by an advisory council and therefore designed to help with legislation then I can see {{PD-EdictGov}} applying as I recall it having broad scope in the US. MarkLSteadman (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Per https://lam.alaska.gov/state-publications/rights, "In general, publications of the State of Alaska are protected by copyright. " so the only question is whether this being created by the state legislature rather than a stage agency makes if fall under Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc (and hence ineligible). MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

August 1989 is too late for a copyright notice to matter (the requirement ended March 1st, 1989.) I don't think PD-EdictGov covers this, though I'm not clear on the latest Supreme Court case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Delete. This report merely describes a problem and, at most, describes at a high level some solutions to that problem employed by other states. There is not a sufficient connection to future legislative activity to meet the Georgia standard. If this report was closer to a committee report, and focused on what a law addressing the problem might look like, it might pass muster; but this report could as easily have been made by an action group concerned with the topic than a state body. There is nothing in here which could help someone reading over the law which was eventually passed understand what the provisions of that law mean, so it does not meet the Georgia standard. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

   Delete Per this comment. MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The source file has gone but the Index file remains, as well as at least 18 Pages that connected to the source. They all need to go. -- Beardo (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Colonel Bleep/Streamline Pictures credits sequence

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted by creator. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Created 1991—clearly copyrighted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: No; you apparently didn't even read what I had extensively written about it, both on the transcription page and at File:Colonel Bleep credits.webm. So I'll explain it again here. This is a special case.

There are two elements here to be analyzed. #1 is the images and sound in the credits sequence, which are taken directly from the show. The show (which aired between 1956 and 1960), in its entirety (including all graphical and audio elements) are public domain because none of that was renewed. This is a known fact in the public-domain community and is about undebatable at this point.

So, the only other element left is the credits text. See Template:PD-ineligible, or the much better explanation at c:Template:PD-text: "Facts, data, and unoriginal information which is common property without sufficiently creative authorship in a general typeface or basic handwriting, and simple geometric shapes are not protected by copyright".

Don't be trigger-happy, please. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• PseudoSkull: If it is not creative at all, then it is a list, mere reference material, and therefore out of scope. Where would you like this discussion, then? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: There are similar PD-ineligible works here, such as Captain Midnight broadcast signal intrusion (which, even if it were copyrightable, would not apply because no notice and no registration). The fact that we even have the template for PD-ineligible indicates that ineligible works for copyright can have a place here. It clearly has relevance to those studying the cartoon, and the video itself of it is included on several of the Wikipedia articles for it. a Wikia page mentioning the credits sequence. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: If you wanna have the proposed deletion debate about this particular instance of PD-ineligible not being good for WS, I'm bringing most of the other cases of its usage past 1928 to the table as well. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

For example, if we are to delete this credits sequence, we probably shouldn't have this either; a validated transcription that survived proposed deletions in 2014-15. The last thing I want is for consistency not to be applied. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

What WS:WWI actually says on the matter, annotated for this specific means: "Wikisource does not collect reference material unless it is published as part of a complete source text (this being part of a film, which the credits sequence can be considered a film in its own right, makes it arguably part of a complete source work). Such information has not been previously published (it has been previously published though), is often user-compiled and unverified (it wasn't user-compiled at all, it was a video published before the World Wide Web even existed by a legitimate company), and does not fit the goals of Wikisource (but it has been demonstrated to be useful to enthusiasts for this particular notable cartoon)." PseudoSkull (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Looking at PD-ineligible, most of the results are death notices—excluding The Times, you get 26 results in (Main) (and a number of those are clearly mislabeled)—a quick look finds this work out of place. Relevance to study is not an inclusion criterion. The work is an excerpt of the 1991 re-release. The signal intrusion was certainly a complete work (and certainly more copyrightable than a list of credits). And, really, Wikia? The credits of a film are not a unique work, nor really separable as they are dependent on the work. Just because your particular list (reference material) has a source doesn’t green-light it for inclusion, even though the concerns motivating the reference-material policy regard verification. Lastly, as to the existence of the template, don’t you remember PD-manifesto? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Deleted. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I didn't delete it as a copyright violation, since the clip was never eligible for copyright to begin with (failed to renew by 1989). I deleted it because I do agree with some of what TE(æ)A,ea. said above, about the credits being an excerpt of an existing work rather than considerable as a work itself. The complete work would probably be the VHS versions of the episodes, or the entire VHS tapes themselves (#1 and #2). And I hate to admit that, because I was really hoping that the credits could be transcribed somewhere, but it appears they don't have a place here after all until 2087. So, keep the clip on Commons, and out of scope here. But to extend on that, I only agree with its deletion insofar as it is not a complete work in and of itself; if it were something like a paper list of book titles created as an official US state document, or a list of deceased persons on a monument, I would oppose such things' deletions to the ends of the earth, since they are works, and we need as many works as possible to be considered a more complete site. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Danforth report

The following discussion is closed:

Files tagged as {{PD-USGov}} and transwikied to Commons. The mainspace artefacts were a press release (now renamed as a stand-alone work) and a list of nonexistent Indexes (now moved to Portal:Danforth report). The report-specific category was thus empty so I deleted it. It can be recreated as Category:Danforth report (to mirror Commons) when we have enough of these proofread to warrant a cat.

These files have no license:

1. File:Danforthreport-Graham.pdf
2. File:Danforthreport-chronology.pdf
3. File:Danforthreport-exhibits.pdf
4. File:Danforthreport-havens.pdf
5. File:Danforthreport-heinrich.pdf
6. File:Danforthreport-history.pdf
7. File:Danforthreport-klasen.pdf
8. File:Danforthreport-lucier.pdf
9. File:Danforthreport-mills.pdf
10. File:Danforthreport-summary.pdf
11. File:Danforthreport-vds.pdf
12. File:Danforthreport-wetherington.pdf

Uploader wrote that it is a "Federal government document".

The question is if it is a third-party document or actually written by the USGov employee. The files are not in use so I do not think fair use will be possible.

Unless anyone can verify it is actually PD I suggest to delete instead. --MGA73 (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment - the main file seems to be Final report to the Deputy Attorney General concerning the 1993 confrontation at the Mt. Carmel Complex, Waco Texas. The links between that and the .pdf File are missing. If the report is PD, it would seem odd if the appendices weren't. -- Beardo (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it depends on who wrote the main report and the appendices and on which terms the work was written. But its a good start that you found the main file/report. --MGA73 (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

"mills" report says prepared for the office of the special counsel would seem to make them government work's whether written by employees or not. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Question [about Korean Declaration of independence (Tokyo), 1919]

The following discussion is closed:

Question answered.

Hello, I'm wondering how to handle this scenario.

What if there is a text that I think is not copyrighted, but I can only find copyrighted images of the text? If I transcribed the text from the image is that permissable?

This is the document if it helps: https://calisphere.org/item/a4def6e09a4c9fae899bc0c5dc0f49f7/

Also a general question: is it possible to only upload transcribed text without uploading the original scans? Toobigtokale (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Toobigtokale: Scans aren’t creative enough to be copyrighted; thus, the claim of copyright is invalid, and only the copyright of the original work (PD-EdictGov for this work, perhaps?) matters. As to your second question, there are many works here already which are just text (with no backing scans), but if it is at all possible to the add the scans, they should be added. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, cool! I'll get around to uploading it then. Thank you! Toobigtokale (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Index:The University Hymn Book.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Copied locally (duplicate request).

Scans seemingly removed from IA link given. This makes me wonder if it's included contributions from lyricists or composers still subject to copyright outside the US.

A careful review is requested, as a 1912 edition would clearly be out of copyright in the US. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

If not copyright - alternative scans are - Internet Archive identifier: universityhymnbo0000uns and Internet Archive identifier: universityhymnb00unknuoft whicyh are thought to be the same 1912 edition. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

 Keep, as you say this is PD in the US due to being published in 1912. It would be a very long and tedious task to determine whether every single author and composer died before the copyright expiry period in Canada (where the work was compiled) and the UK (where it was printed). I recommend moving it from Commons to enWS in case there are some parts that are still copyrighted in the source country. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Index:The University Hymn Book.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Copied locally.

The issue is the contribution of a Canadian author, who was still active in the 1960's.

Namely :- w:Ernest_MacMillan (18 August 1893 – 6 May 1973).

I'm not convinced this is actually public domain. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The book was published in 1912. It is in the public domain according to US law, thus we can host it. If editors are from countries that are Life+70, then they don't work on this book—or at least skip MacMillan's contributions for 20 years. In the meantime, those who are from the US or from a Life+50 country can go right ahead. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The file would need to be hosted here rather than on Commons , So this is also a localisation request. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

<sigh> That was the answer back in March when you listed this same Index for discussion further up this page, but it's not the way you raised the issue this time. Fluffy/fuzzy requests are likely to be ignored. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Noted. I should have checked the archive as well :( So is anyone prepared to localise this file? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I can do it (not sure when I'll get around to it though). I don't see why you couldn't do it yourself though, I'm pretty sure Special:Upload can be used by anyone -- Beleg Âlt (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

While the WMF's servers and headquarters are in the US (thus making that jurisdiction's law the absolute minimum we must adhere to), not all contributors are in the US and are thus subject to some non-US copyright regime. For files which are public domain solely through quirks of the US copyright regime, transferring such a file from Commons, or uploading it from whatever source, to enWS might conceivably be construed to be direct or contributory copyright infringement by the usual copyright leeches *cough* sorry, intellectual property lawyers. Every contributor must do their own risk-assessment in view of that fact, and to decide they do not want to take the chance is entirely reasonable. Xover (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Anything from before 1928 is by default hostable here at enWS. Anything, no matter the country. It takes some very rare and miraculous kind of exception to deem any pre-1928 work still copyrighted in the US, and it being from another country isn't one of those. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I do think we should have a separate section on this page for collecting these localization / move requests. A. Ideally we want to preserve history and make sure the transfer is done properly which requires permissions / familiarity with the tooling. B. It makes clear the intent of the discussion and request (Are we talking public domain in the source country or the US? Is this an investigation or a move request?). C. It avoids the "why don't you do it?" response by explaining why such requests are necessary. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

2017 Hamas Charter

The following discussion is closed:

deleted in consultation with contributor that lacking authoritative version with clear release of copyright — billinghurst sDrewth 22:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

This has no copyright information but seems unlikely to be public domain. -- Beardo (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete per the rationale above and also the discussion at User talk:Em3rgent0rdr#2017 Hamas Charter. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Astounding Science Fiction (1955-07).djvu deleted, local project affected

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure how this project handles when the source on Commons is deleted, but File:Astounding Science Fiction (1955-07).djvu has been zapped per Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Astounding_Science_Fiction_(1955-07).djvu and it's used on this project.

• Index:Astounding Science Fiction (1955-07).djvu
• Page:Astounding Science Fiction (1955-07).djvu/1
• Page:Astounding Science Fiction (1955-07).djvu/163
• Page:Astounding Science Fiction (1955-07).djvu/164
• Page:Astounding Science Fiction (1955-07).djvu/165
• Page:Astounding Science Fiction (1955-07).djvu/166
• Page:Astounding Science Fiction (1955-07).djvu/167
• Page:Astounding Science Fiction (1955-07).djvu/41
• Page:Astounding Science Fiction (1955-07).djvu/77
• Page:Astounding Science Fiction (1955-07).djvu/3
• Page:Astounding Science Fiction (1955-07).djvu/6

Cheers, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Is there any reason to keep any of them? My understanding is that all of the interesting parts of the magazine are copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• complete of pages has been provided  Delete, and think that we can speedy it. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Index:The_Origin_and_Development_of_the_Bengali_Language_(Volume_1).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

moved here and labelled {{PD-US|1997}} and tagged {{do not move to commons}} — billinghurst sDrewth 01:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Suniti Kumar Chattopadhyay (1890–1977). I fail to see how this can be PD-India. 1977+60= 2037 at the earliest.

It is pre 1928, so might be PD-US-abroad , but in any event this and volume 2 need to be localised from Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Index:Persian Grammar.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

has been deleted — billinghurst sDrewth 11:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

This is the 1960 revised edition, not the 1953 date given. As a UK published work in 1960 I fail to see how this can be public domain outside the US. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Ann Lambton died in 2008 w:Ann_Lambton ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Letter to Miltiades

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Looks like taken from Documents Illustrating Papal Authority AD 96-454 by E. Giles, published in London 1952. As such it would be copyrighted in the US. The archive.org page states that the work is there published under CC BY 3.0, but there is no information who has released it and whether they had the right to release it. Lower below there is written "Original copyright was not renewed and book is now in the public domain", but such a rule should not apply to a book published outside the US. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like there was an American edition in 1979, so this will have entered the public domain in the USA 70 years after the death of Giles. Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything about when Giles died. Fortunately, Giles states that this is merely a revised version of this translation that we already have.  Delete —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 09:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The Four Seasons Sonnets

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

No source and no licence for the English translation (from Italian) are given. I found the text only in various 21 century publications, it cannot be found in any books older than 20 years in Google Books search and I did not succeed in HathiTrust either. For this reason I suspect that the translation is not very old and thus most probably copyrighted. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (The Crisis in Our Party)

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

1964 translation of a work by Lenin, published in Moscow, so still copyrighted. See also Author talk:Vladimir Ilyich Lenin#Complete Lenin works -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

See also User talk:2603:7000:D03A:5895:A978:F848:5AD2:920A. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Twelve-point Mission Statement By Keith Raniere

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

The original entry said "The entity holding NXIVM's intellectual property, First Principles Incorporated, was completely forfeited to the United States government. Upon information and belief, this document has fallen into the public domain and may be shared as such.", but a later one from the same user stated "Rights to this work belong to the government following the imprisonment of Keith Raniere, dismantlement of NXIVM Corporation, and the forfeiture of all assets of First Principles, Inc. (its related intellectual holding company)." - but does that make it eligible to be hosted here ? -- Beardo (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

No. The US federal government can hold copyrights through deed, forfeiture, etc.; it just can't be the author of any new copyright. The copyrights still exist so it's just a matter of who currently owns them, and for our purposes that doesn't matter unless we want to pursue open licensing with the owner (which I think is highly unlikely in this case). Xover (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Xover Thanks - that is what I suspected. -- Beardo (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 08:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Azerbaijan Democratic Republic Declaration of Independence

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Looks like a modern translation, probably from Tadeusz Swietochowski. Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995, used as the reference by the uploader. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 08:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Index:6-Permanent-Platform-Committee-FINAL-REPORT-6-16-2022.pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Apparently the 2022 Republic Party (of Texas) platform; not a government document. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

 Delete per nom. Ciridae (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Edict on the Transfer of the Capital

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio. There is insufficient evidence to determine any compatible licensing for this text.

Originally sourced by a blog, but not present there anymore. Looks like a modern translation and cannot be found in any public domain sources including Google Books, Archive.org or HathiTrust. According to this document, it can be found in Vuong, Q. H., & Tran, T. D. (2009). The cultural dimensions of the Vietnamese private entrepreneurship. The IUP Journal of Entrepreneurship and Development, 6 (3), 54–78 (available here), but I did not find it there. As a result there is no evidence of the translation being in the public domain, and so I suggest to delete it. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. --Xover (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. The citations in that work are all very wrong. The author means to cite the translation of the VASS, a state agency of Vietnam. And as the work in question is, as the name suggests, an edict, this work is considered to be an official translation of an edict of government, and thus in the public domain. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  As I understand it, the name suggests that the original work (not the translation) was an edict. I did not find any evidence that the translation was the official translation issued by the Vietnamese government. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  • Jan Kameníček: Per PD-EdictGov, “any translation” officially prepared counts as well. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

    OK, but I do not see any evidence that the translation was "…prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties" (quoting from {{PD-EdictGov}}). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

    • Jan Kameníček: I mean, I told you who made it, right? So what evidence are you looking for? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

      @TE(æ)A,ea.: May I ask where you got this information from? I spent a lot of time searching for it and did not find it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

      • Jan Kameníček: Quite close, actually: w:Edict on the Transfer of the Capital. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

        It is a little confusing as there are two possible translations from the Chinese: into Vietnamese and into English. I am not sure whether the VASS translated into both English and Vietnamese or only into Vietnamese. I tried searching worldcat and couldn't find the 1993 book in English. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

        The citation was added to enWP in 2008 attached to the Vietnamese translation (by the same user that added the Vietnamese translation). The English translation was added in 2009, with no citation. All the texts were then cut&pasted here by that same user. The two translations were then conflated in 2017 by a different user (since indeffed for harassment), and the citation attached to the single line of Vietnamese text interspersed between two paragraphs of the English text. It is clear that the cited book was not the source for the English translation.

        In addition, the VASS, now named Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences, is a government owned and funded research institution, but that does not ipso facto make them "officers of the government". It may conceivably do so, but that would depend on a lot of hairy details of how they're chartered and organised (are they independent, or a literal government department, for example) that cannot be assumed. Xover (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

        This aligns with my general read of the situation. This was a user provided translation from Vietnamese to English, and should be standardized to follow the translation policy by an appropriate contributor (it already exists on both Chinese and Vietnamese WS) with clear copyright licensing. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

        It might be possible that it is a contributor’s translation, but we cannot be certain about it at all unless the contributor confirms it. The fact that D. T. Hien et al. misreferenced it when they referred to a wrong 2009 publication does not mean that they did not take it from some other publication: on the contrary, it seems more probable that they took it from some published source, only referred to a wrong article by mistake. So we cannot say with certainty that it is a (Wikisource) user provided translation and that it is not copyrighted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

        Right, it's relatively a short text in case a suitable person wants to do a clean translation. MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

        I'm with Jan on this one, so my !vote above stands. A new translation from scratch would be a different text and can be dealt with separately, if and when such a text materialises. Xover (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

        We are in agreement here, mostly just making the call in case someone wants to step in and provide such a translation. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Diocese of Pittsburgh documents

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Page:Divine Mercy Parish Letter - 6-19-20.pdf/1 - no source is showing - perhaps that has been deleted. Is there any way that this could be permitted in WS ?

Also:

• Page:Saint Benedict the Moor Parish Decree - 6-19-20.pdf/1
• Page:Saint Benedict the Moor Parish Decree - 6-19-20.pdf/2
• Page:Saint Benedict the Moor Parish Decree - 6-19-20.pdf/3

Here, I found a link to a commons file which was deleted for lack of licensing.

In both cases there are Indexes which are blank. With the former, there is also a main page. -- Beardo (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete for Index:Divine Mercy Parish Letter - 6-19-20.pdf. I see no evidence of nor plausible rationale for compatible licensing. --Xover (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  And  Delete for Index:Saint Benedict the Moor Parish Decree - 6-19-20.pdf as well for the same reason. Xover (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I Like the Stock

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

This is a prepared statement by a private individual, and as such it is protected by a copyright owned by that individual. It is available as a public record because it was performed (read aloud) to Congressional committee, but it is not public domain.

This is not a work of the United States federal government but rather just a public speech by a living people. Midleading (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This testimony is an excerpt of the Congressional version published by the GPO here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-117hhrg43966/pdf/CHRG-117hhrg43966.pdf starting on page 13. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The author is not a United States federal government employee. Does it imply the author released this work into the public domain when his work is redistributed by the congress? Or is it possible that the author only licensed this work to the congress? Midleading (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Committee records are fulfilling a specific requirement of the Rules of the house and are considered records of the house: Rule VII: "Records so delivered are the permanent property of the House and remain subject to this rule and any order of the House.", "The Clerk shall authorize the Archivist to make records delivered under clause 2 available for public use." Under Rule XI of the House for the 117th Congress, verbatim transcripts are part of those records. "Each committee shall keep a complete record of all committee action which shall include—(i) in the case of a meeting or hearing transcript, a substantially verbatim account of remarks actually made during the proceedings..." "Each committee shall include in its rules standards for availability of records of the committee delivered to the Archivist of the United States under rule VII." I am not a lawyer, and you would have to parse both the House and Senate rules but committee testimony being specifically called out is special in a way that, say, the same person emailing the committee is not. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The argument is that the Rules of the House treat transcripts of hearing testimony special as official records (e.g. relative to the same words made to a reporter in the halls of congress before or after the hearing) and that the Rules released them into the public domain. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47590 states "published legislative documents—such as bills, committee reports, hearing transcripts, and the Congressional Record—" as an indication that these transcripts are "special." MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete as clear copyvio. This is a prepared statement, not off the cuff remarks, and its author is a private individual. Its appearance in a GPO publication is as a public record, not public domain. (It is also a cherry-picked excerpt divorced from its context in order to promote a particular agenda, but that's a different issue.) --Xover (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  We have multiple other works that consist of testimony before committees by non-US government employees. E.g. the testimony before Portal:United States House of Representatives/Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Sandra Fluke testimony to US Congress (2012 February 23), United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary Materials for testimony of Thomas P. Sullivan concerning pending efforts to strip federal courts of habeas corpus jurisdiction relating to Guantanamo Prisoners are a few examples. We currently are running the testimony of Ali Alexander, also a private individual, before a house committee as part of the monthly challenge. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  We have a rather large backlog of non-compliant texts, yes, but since I don't believe in mass-nominating older texts and a lot of these require research and nuanced judgement to determine copyright status I think it's better to deal with these case by case as they come up. *shrug* We should do a much better job of patrolling these as they are added to steer expectations for all involved, but we do as well as we can with the manpower we have available. But maybe best not to run one in the Monthly Challenge if it it's possible copyvio. Xover (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Mostly I am surprised there isn't precedent as well as it not being raised when we started doing some of those transcriptions (e.g. those files being nominated for deletion at commons). MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  A lot of stuff flies under the radar, and I've seen pages that have been up for over a decade before someone noticed they were against policy. And public speeches are such a fuzzy area that I personally am not surprised that this did not come up before. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

We do have some precedent for erring on the side of "keep" for public speeches. I personally think this is not a good thing, but there it is. As far as copyright goes, it is my understanding that if the speaker wrote down the speech while preparing it, this suffices for the speech to be "fixed in a tangible medium" and thus copyrighted. If the speech is extemporaneous, it would be public domain if transcribed by a public official. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

See also meta:Copyright of Political Speeches and Portal:Speeches/Copyright —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Without digging into the details, my assumption would be that for extemporaneous speech a mechanical transcript would be public domain no matter who did the transcribing. Xover (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the person doing the transcription owns the copyright, but I can't find any clear statement either way. I expect that it would need to be tested in court. (shrug) —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Comment We have somewhat differentiated in these areas of testimony. Where a written work has been submitted as evidence we have redacted it where it is a soul appendix though kept it where it is integral to the work. Here the testimony is presented as an excerpt of the proceedings so if it was presented as a subpage of the corpus, then we can say it has value for inclusion, where it sits alone as a shag on a rock, it would appear to fail the copyright/inclusion criteria. I think that we need to look at it holistically. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

In copyright terms that's a distinction without meaning. It becomes no more or less protected by copyright the more or less random other text you paste before or after it on a page. Xover (talk) 08:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Almost always that is true. Copying and pasting a copyrighted excerpt into an openly-licensed document doesn't magically make it not copyrighted or no matter how much fair use exception it fulfills. Even copying and pasting it into a government report does not either (hence we blank no free images out). However, in the context of the US Congress, it becomes murky because copyright comes from the government and the issues around the various PD exceptions that come from that. If it is placed in a congressional bill or read on the floor in debate or read in committee before a vote and now it is placed in different contexts. IANAL so I don't know how the intersection between the rules of the House and the Senate interacts with copyright law. MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

When a congresscritter reads the works of Dr. Seuss into the record it is a copyright violation, but the critter in question is protected from infringement charges by the speech and debate clause. The resulting record is a fair use of the copyrighted work since it was, indeed, read aloud on the floor. PD-USGov applies to works authored by the government, not works used under fair use by the government. The issue is different when it comes to PD-EdictGov (which doesn't apply here) because by incorporating something in a law it becomes the law, and as a law it must be public domain per edicts. Xover (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

So this is OK if the whole GPO publication is transcribed here instead of just this article? Then it can be used under fair use just like articles in the public domain with citations to copyrighted work? Midleading (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Midleading: No, enWS does not permit materials under fair use. Xover (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Xover That is one extreme example, it's not like if I mail Dr Seuss as an amicus or a per se legal filing it is now magically copyright free either, even if the judge includes it an appendix to an opinion, but also we don't blot out a paragraph quoting a legal argument from an appellate brief either. If a congresscritter makes a speech on the floor of the House from his own prepared text (as is often the case) why is that any different from a copyright perspective from reading Dr. Seuss? Or making the same speech at a private event (outside of the constitutional protections)? What official duty is the congresscritter fulfilling to make the claim it is now a federal government work, like would be the case for a Congressional Budge Office report? Understanding congress as a collection of copyrighted political speeches that produce copyright free legislation is a conservative way of approaching the issue of course, and it would of course would be nice to have an amendment to the copyright law passed that specifically exempted congressional testimony. Back to the matter of deletion, I would suggest deleting the whole current text as incomplete and unsourced to begin with. If someone wants to go proofread the whole text with the prepared testimony removed, relying on the off the cuff rule for the QA portion and then we can argue about restoring the blanked out sections then. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

If a congresscritter makes a speech on the floor of the House, it, and the preparation of the speech, is done as an employee of the government. That is one of the most essentially job related part of their careers.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Translation:Salvador Allende's Last Speech

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Multiple theories have been advanced as to why this might be public domain.

The first that it is an edict of government and hence covered under {{PD-EdictGov}}, but the President of Chile (if Allende can even be considered President at the time of this speech, which is not obvious) is neither a competent legislative body nor speaks with the force of law.

The second that it is exempt from copyright as a government work along the lines of {{PD-USGov}}, but Chilean copyright law does not place government works into the public domain (it merely makes them reusable without financial remuneration in certain limited circumstances).

The bottom line is that there is no evidence or plausible theory as to how the original speech might be public domain or compatibly licensed, and hence the user-contributed translation, while itself CC+GFDL, is also a copyvio as a derivative work of the original.

Previous discussions: WS:CV#Salvador Allende's Last Speech (2012), WS:CV#Salvador Allende's Last Speech (2014)

This work needs licensing information, and I am not sure which license(s) apply in this particular case. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't PD-EdictGov apply to the original work, as Allende was acting as the president of Chile when he gave this speech? Ciridae (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

No, presidential speeches are not government edicts —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

According to the Spanish wikisource "En Dominio Público. Ley de propiedad intelectual dice "Artículo 71 D. [...] Las conferencias, discursos políticos, alegatos judiciales y otras obras del mismo carácter que hayan sido pronunciadas en público, podrán ser utilizadas libremente y sin pago de remuneración, con fines de información, quedando reservado a su autor el derecho de publicarlas en colección separada."" - https://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Discusi%C3%B3n:%C3%9Altimo_discurso_de_Salvador_Allende - i.e. "In Public Domain. Intellectual property law says "Article 71 D. [...] Conferences, political speeches, judicial arguments and other works of the same nature that have been delivered in public, may be used freely and without payment of remuneration, for information purposes , the right to publish them in a separate collection is reserved to their author."" -- Beardo (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

That definition is self-contradictory: the terms it describes are not "public domain". Xover (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not so much self-contradictory, but rather that they are using the term "public domain" differently than the way we use it in US copyright law and the way we use it here in enWS. But you are correct, this legislation is not permissive enough to be compatible with our copyright policy. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Contemporary patent copyright license template

The following discussion is closed:

Absent direct regulation of the issue, the Copyright Circular's take is authoritative: patent applications are copyrightable like all other such works, and both the test for and license tag for patents would be the same as for other works. In practice, that means "threshold of originality", explicit compatible licensing, or expiry of the relevant term of protection.

What template should be used for recent (otherwise-copyrighted) patents? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not following. If they are copyrighted they are not eligible for hosting. Are you saying there are some patent applications / patent grants that are explicitly licensed with a compatible license? Xover (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Xover: I guess I meant “otherwise-copyrightable” patents. Patents should not be subject to copyright—that’s the whole point of having separate laws. Patent specifications as technical descriptions of the patent in question are “facts” or “ideas,” not “expressions” of those ideas. At least, that’s the case in theory. How would that be indicated in a license? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure we have a way to do that. It'd be some variant of asserting that the relevant text was ineligible for copyright protection, as opposed to having been protected but the term of protection expired or being protected but the owner has licensed it with a permissive license. If the need is there I imagine this would best be solved by a dedicated template.

  But note that I am not at all certain patent applications and patent grants are ineligible for copyright. Quite the contrary in some cases: a design patent describes (typically with illustrations) ornamental or artistic aspects of an item. I certainly wouldn't rely on any such blanket assumption of ineligibility without making a concrete assessment of the specific patent in question. Xover (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Xover: This is the patent, if you’re interested. While it does have many illustrations, I wouldn’t say there is much ornamentation, although there is a bit of additional detail. Whether that additional detail counts as copyrightable is debatable. Many of the images are below the threshold of originality, and especially so if you consider them to be on the idea side of the idea–expression dichotomy. Your thoughts? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

    My immediate inclination is that this is plenty creative to be copyrightable (the threshold of originality is pretty low). Most of the text is also merely dry and technical (like a Wikipedia article), and not a mere listing of facts. There is creative expression even in dry prose.

    I'm hesitant to be too emphatic since I've never considered this problem before, but I don't see this patent has a path to being hostable for us. I'm open to the idea that some patents might be, but for this one i'm not seeing it.

    Anybody else have thoughts on this? Xover (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

    See Compendium § 717.3 (3d. ed. 2021): "The U.S. Copyright Office may register a claim to copyright in the written description for an invention or the drawings or photographs set forth in a patent or a patent application, provided that the work contains a sufficient amount of original authorship." There is also (unsurprisingly) the article w:Copyright on the content of patents and in the context of patent prosecution. A patent itself (i.e., the idea being patented) is presumably not copyrightable, but the patent documentation is. Shells-shells (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Indian Influences in Old-Balinese Art

The following discussion is closed:

Still in copyright until 2031. Thread below contains list of wikipages to undelete at that time.

The translated work Indian Influences in Old-Balinese Art was printed in English in 1935; by Willem Frederik Stutterheim, translated by Claire Holt

The original work may be okay, however, investigation of the translator for the English language edition shows w:Claire Holt (art historian) (1901-1970), so we are not at death +70 or even close, unfortunately.

@Bennylin: — billinghurst sDrewth 14:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. No renewal notice. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, I would also like to call @Rachmat04: as the uploader and Index creator. I would defer to the community consensus. Bennylin (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with the consensus later, whether to keep the file (the content is hidden on enwikisource until it falls into the public domain) or remove it. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 08:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete Dutch original first published in Amsterdam in 1930. Translation first published in London in 1935. Original is by Willem Frederik Stutterheim (1892–1942) and under pma. 70 rules was in copyright in the Netherlands until 2012. The translation is by Claire Holt (1901–1970) and will be in copyright in the UK until 2040. Both were in copyright at home on their respective URAA dates (1996), and as such are in copyright in the US until 2025 and 2030 respectively (95 years from first publication). --Xover (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree, but it would be good to have it listed somewhere so that we do not forget to renew it in 2030. The work is scanbacked, proofread and validated, so it would be a pity to lose it completely. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

We have no good process for that, unfortunately. I think the best we can probably do is a {{copyright-until}} entry on the author page(s) with an extra note that it can be undeleted in 2031 (and links to all the pages to be undeleted; since deleted pages obviously do not show up in Special:PrefixIndex-searches and similar). Xover (talk) 09:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

They've accumulated on pages like Wikisource:Requested texts/1931.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, good point. We could certainly use Requested texts for this. Still not a good way to list all the individual pages that would need to be undeleted, but better than nothing. Xover (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

In cs.ws they have a subpage of the Admin’s Noticeboard where they keep record of deleted copyvios to be undeleted after it gets possible. I suggest to found a similar (sub)page here as well, but I would include only well processed scan-backed texts there. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, the objection to that is we're just barely (not) managing to keep up with WS:CV/WS:PD processing as it is. Too often it happens that stuff slips through, like removing a {{copyvio}} or {{delete}} template from a page that was kept, or missing some other required cleanup, or... I'm leery of adding yet another necessary step to the process. I've no objection (quite the contrary) to people keeping track of stuff to be undeleted at a specific date, but as a practical matter it'd have to be left up to interested editors rather than become yet another responsibility for the closing admin.

In any case, I would prefer Prosfilaes' idea of using Requested texts for this to a subpage of AN or even of CV. It's already set up for a very similar purpose so it's a good match. And on "public domain day" every year there is plenty of attention on that year's page, so doing a batch undelete of those listed would be a natural extension. Xover (talk) 08:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bennylin @Billinghurst @Jan.Kamenicek @Prosfilaes @Prosfilaes I was going to do some work on this, as it appears on the 'petscan:10130888 — validated works needing transclusion' report on Billinghurst's user page (trying to get the number down a bit). However, although it was statused as fully validated, it wasn't (one page was still at 'not proofread'}, it is not fully transcluded (hence being on the report) and the 'previous' and 'next' fields for the chapters are empty. However, it's main deficiency is that the scan is missing a number of pages (on my count only 18 of the 23 plates are present, noting that in some cases there are two on a page) along with the pages containing their description. Notwithstanding the copyright issue I would suggest deletion unless scan can be fixed. Chrisguise (talk) 10:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment I would suggest that the means to do this is to try and follow what happens at Commons, per their c:Commons:Files to be restored when out of copyright. It would mean that we would need to do here would be to put the excise discussions into a subpage of this page (either to a page per year, or per discussion), and categorise it appropriately. This would also allow us to go back to Commons and undelete there as necessary. We already do similar maintenance to migrate works to Commons, and it is not an overly tedious task, nd usually gets done in January/February of each year.

My suggestion on how to manage would be to simply create a subpage, which is a redirect, and to tag that page with something pertinent. Reference pCategory:Media not suitable for Commons for that setup — billinghurst sDrewth 08:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

For future (undeletion) reference, the wikipages involved are:

Wikipages and files to undelete in 2031

• File:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu
• Index:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/1
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/2
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/3
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/4
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/5
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/6
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/7
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/8
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/9
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/10
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/11
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/12
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/13
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/14
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/15
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/16
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/17
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/18
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/19
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/20
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/21
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/22
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/23
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/24
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/25
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/26
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/27
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/28
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/29
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/30
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/31
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/32
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/33
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/34
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/35
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/36
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/37
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/38
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/39
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/40
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/41
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/42
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/43
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/44
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/45
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/46
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/47
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/48
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/49
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/50
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/51
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/52
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/53
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/54
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/55
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/56
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/57
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/58
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/59
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/60
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/61
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/62
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/63
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/64
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/65
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/66
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/67
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/68
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/69
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/70
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/71
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/72
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/73
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/74
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/75
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/76
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/77
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/78
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/79
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/80
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/81
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/82
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/83
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/84
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/85
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/86
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/87
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/88
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/89
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/90
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/91
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/92
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/93
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/94
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/95
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/96
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/97
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/98
• Page:Indian influences in old-balinese art, by Willem F. Stutterheim, 1935.djvu/99
• Indian Influences in Old-Balinese Art
• Indian Influences in Old-Balinese Art/Antiquities and their Style
• Indian Influences in Old-Balinese Art/Bali after the Advent of Hinduism
• Indian Influences in Old-Balinese Art/Bali before Hinduism
• Indian Influences in Old-Balinese Art/Conclusion
• Indian Influences in Old-Balinese Art/History of Hinduistic Bali
• Indian Influences in Old-Balinese Art/Introduction
• Indian Influences in Old-Balinese Art/List of Illustrations
• Indian Influences in Old-Balinese Art/Map of Bali
• Indian Influences in Old-Balinese Art/Preface
• Indian Influences in Old-Balinese Art/Religious Worship and the Cult of Kings

They can be undeleted in 2031. --Xover (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Bulgarian Declaration of Independence

The following discussion is closed:

No evidence of compatible licensing or public domain status. And if this is a Wikisource translation it is in any case not compliant with the translations policy.

English translation unsourced and not attributed to any author. I suggest deleting it under pre-cautionary principle. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. enWS does not have a precautionary principle. This appears to be a user translation of a French translation of the Bulgarian (presumably) original. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  I think that "appears" is not enough. We need to know it is in PD domain or freely licenced. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete per Jan. That we haven't adopted c:COM:PRP as bright-line policy on enWS does not invalidate the principle. If we cannot with reasonable certainty, based on actual evidence rather than assumptions, determine copyright status to be expired or compatibly licensed then we cannot host the given text. Our licensing policy is an implied guarantee to our reusers, so giving them texts with unknown or doubtful licensing status is a very serious breach of faith. Ironically, the best way to promote free culture is to be strict about copyright. --Xover (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Note that there are other public domain translations, e.g on pg. 400 Google Books or pg. 113 Google Books MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Keep Move to Translation: namespace. There is reasonable evidence there to support a user-based translation based on the document and the reference. Poke a disambiguation page in place in the main ns that points to the Translation, if truly needed. We don't have precautionary principle, though we do have due care. Run a search, and if you cannot find those words on the web, then we can also support our approach. If you can find a word for word text on an older webpage then we can delete it. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

A History of Yesterday

The following discussion is closed:

No evidence of the required renewal, so even if it was originally published with a copyright notice the copyright expired after 28 years.

This page is tagged PD-US but was published after 1928. Luke10.27 (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Because the notes field says, "Translated by George Kline for the Russian Review in 1949, the copyright has since lapsed," this work may qualify for {{PD-US-no-renewal}}, but this would need to be proved. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 02:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. Neither the issue nor the article were renewed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea. Thanks! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Cat (Farjeon)

The following discussion is closed:

Already deleted as copyvio. Copyright was renewed.

Was tagged as {{PD-US}} but the listed publication date is 1938. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 02:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

With renewal (Renewal: R380355) MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

That means it is copyvio and needs to be deleted, right? Luke10.27 (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Xover (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek address to Chinese New First Army in India

The following discussion is closed:

1943 original is subject to a pma. 50 copyright term, and since Chiang Kai-shek died in 1975 that means it was still in copyright on the URAA date. It is thus in copyright in the US until 1943 + 95 + 1 = 2039.

same as above Luke10.27 (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

This would need to be covered by PD-CN for the original and US government for the translation (https://history.army.mil/html/books/009/9-2/CMH_Pub_9-2.pdf, pg. 67). MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@MarkLSteadman To clarify, are you saying those licenses do apply, or just that they would be the appropriate licenses if any? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

We need some reason for the original to not be covered by the URAA restoration as it is surely not in English and that would be the only feasible route I believe, but I am unfamiliar with Chinese copyright law. MarkLSteadman (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Chinese copyright has a lot of unique features, but for the general case you can treat them as pma. 50 with a 1996 URAA date. Xover (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Since Chiang Kai-shek died in 1975, it won't be in the PD because of PMA 50. But I don't whether, say, the current government of China would consider this a government work or not given the complicated politics of the time. (Stillwell died in 1946 if he did the translation). MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The government for our purposes is whoever is recognized by the UN and the majority of countries as the legal government. Up to about 1948–1949 (when Chiang's forces were defeated by the CCP and he fled to Taiwan) that would have been the ROC. Xover (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Deșteaptă-te, române!

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, unknown copyright status.

The given source does not say anything about the origin of the translation. It can be found in various books dated from late 1990s to 2020s, and also HathiTrust does not seem to have it in any old publication, which suggests it is a modern translations and so there is high probability it is still copyrighted, unless we find a proof it was released into Public Domain. Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The community from its beginnings has tended to not look too closely at national anthems, possibly a purposeful blindspot? <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 00:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Given it dates to 1848 and was adopted in 1917 as the anthem in the Moldavian Democratic Republic I am somewhat surprised there isn’t a PD translation done at least around that time.... MarkLSteadman (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

As no evidence about the translation being in public domain has appeared, I think the nomination can be closed. Unless opposed, I am going to delete the text soon. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

To a Woman

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. According to Prosfilaes' comment in WS:CV#One Who Comes at Eventide, there are no renewals for Howard's work before 1937, making this {{PD-US-no notice}}.

Same as above Luke10.27 (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

A number of Robert Ervin Howard's works are {{PD-US-no-renewal}} or {{PD-US-no-notice}}, but we'd need proof that this one is. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a tough one. Howard seems to have written three different poems titled "To a Woman", one of which exists in two early drafts and was eventually renamed to "To a Modern Young Lady". Our text is apparently the one usually called "To a Woman (2)" and was first published in Modern American Poetry in October 1933 (here). Modern American Poetry was published with a copyright notice, so it's a search through renewals for the magazine (probably not for the poem itself) that's needed.

As CalendulaAsteraceae says, a number of Howard's works are {{PD-US-no notice}} and {{PD-US-no renewal}}; but there are also some that are {{PD-US-unpublished}} (Howard died more than 70 years ago so any of their works that were never published before 2003 are now public domain). Unfortunately, Howard also has some litigious successors in interest in those copyrights so it's best to do the due diligence properly. Xover (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The Sun Also Rises

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. There's no indication of a valid current copyright in the new material in the 1954 reprint. The most likely candidate is the cover image, but there is no obvious mention of that in any copyright statement.

same as above Luke10.27 (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

On Commons this work is tagged as {{PD-US-no-renewal}}. Considering this work was proofread in the January 2022 Monthly Challenge, I'm hoping someone has a convenient link with proof the work qualifies? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The core book was published 1926 and the only copyright notice is for 1926. Any additions or changes, like the cover, lack a copyright notice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

That means it's not copyvio, right? Luke10.27 (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Correct, the copyright of the main text dates to the original edition and is expired. Maybe we should create a reprint license template that would make this more clear? MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@MarkLSteadman, that's a good idea. Do you have phrasing suggestions? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Something like "This work is a newer edition of a previously copyrighted work that contains new material additions such as the cover image, front matter or end matter. Original: FOO. New material: BAR." modeled on {{translation license}}. MarkLSteadman (talk) 05:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit overkill? I'm not necessarily against the idea, but my immediate response is that it's not worth the extra complication. Xover (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

It would avoid confusion, which IMO is worth what little complexity it would add. (BTW this is User:Luke10.27; I can't access my password manager right now) 184.21.204.5 01:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, this conversation inspired me to finish migrating {{translation license}} to Lua, and with the current code, it would be less trouble than it used to be to make another template on the same model. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@MarkLSteadman {{Reprint license}} —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 05:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The Fastest Bicycle Rider in the World

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. Whatever is the case with its renewal, this work is now past the pub. +95 watershed and is definite public domain.

As above; was tagged {{PD-US}} but published in 1928. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 02:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that this is {{PD-US-no-renewal}}. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

On what basis? Xover (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I did a quick look in the stanford renewal database and didn't see it but also because of the obstacles and lack of general interest because of the racism of the times when it came up for renewal. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of it in the Stanford Renewal Database, but anybody could renew works they had the right to renew for a filing fee, and it's pretty random who did and didn't. I wouldn't rely on ideas like that for what wasn't renewed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I was just saying of all the books published in 1928, those by authors who died in poverty a few years later, estranged by their families, who had limited commercial interest, who were relatively obscure at the time of renewal etc. are the ones probably worth investigating for non renewal. Sure, someone could have written up a proper contract to acquire the rights, he could have paid a lawyer to set up a trust to do it on his behalf, etc., as opposed to best selling award winning book still in print etc. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

There's no need for a trust; an heir could file a renewal on a copyrighted work, ending any publisher licenses on the work. The big stuff was almost always renewed, but even random stuff could be and was frequently renewed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I assume that as of this day 1/1/2024, this particular work is now PD-US. Pasicles (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 07:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

One Who Comes at Eventide

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. First published in Modern American Poetry in October 1933, and according to Prosfilaes there are no known renewals for Howard's work prior to 1937, making this {{PD-US-no renewal}}.

As with To a Woman, this work might be {{PD-US-no-notice}} or {{PD-US-no-renewal}}, but we'd need proof. Could someone who knows how to do that sort of thing check the copyright renewals for Robert Ervin Howard and Modern American Poetry in October 1933? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, the renewals would be in 1960 or 1961. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.58422 has the book. Robert E. Howard doesn't have any renewals prior to his 1937 works, and Modern American Poetry doesn't seem to have been renewed; I checked the compiled Gutenberg renewals and the periodical renewals for 1960 and 1961.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Thank you! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 08:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Moon Mockery

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. {{PD-US-no renewal}}.

This one was published in Weird Tales/1929#April so I'm not too worried, but neither the page nor the scan actually claim that copyright wasn't renewed, so I'd appreciate a confirmation. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The Weird Tales pages were annotated with all the renewals; if they show the cover instead of a renewal notice, they're good.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Lucy Etheldred Broadwood

The following discussion is closed:

Delete as copyvio. First published in the UK in 1929 without observing US formalities, and since the author died in 1938 it was still in pma. 70 copyright in the UK on 1. January 1996 when it was restored to a pub. +95 term in the US by the URAA. Its US copyright expires in 1929 + 95 + 1 = 2025 so next public domain day it can be undeleted. Wikipages affected are Lucy Etheldred Broadwood and Journal of the Folk-Song Society.

Published in 1929 in Journal of the Folk-Song Society. Like above, needs proof it's PD. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It's from England; it's clearly restored by the URAA.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Levy-Dew (de la Mare)

The following discussion is closed:

First published in the UK in 1931 and the author died in 1956. Its pma. 70 UK copyright term expires after 2026, and its URAA-restored US term in the same year as the UK.

Published 1931. Was this copyrighted/renewed? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

de la Mare is likely covered by URAA restoration. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. But see [4] and [5]—non-simultaneous publication with a copyright notice but no renewal, PD-US-no renewal. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  If the UK edition was in 1931 and the first US edition was in 1962, then this is a UK work and its copyright was restored by the URAA. What's the relevance of the renewal for the Shanks work here? Xover (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The Handbook of Palestine

The following discussion is closed:

No action required. There are no scans on Commons to xwiki, so whoever decides to upload the scans just has to make sure they are uploaded here instead of Commons.

Pages

• The Handbook of Palestine
• The Handbook of Palestine/1
• The Handbook of Palestine/2
• The Handbook of Palestine/3
• The Handbook of Palestine/4
• The Handbook of Palestine/4/1
• The Handbook of Palestine/4/10
• The Handbook of Palestine/4/2
• The Handbook of Palestine/4/8
• The Handbook of Palestine/4/9
• The Handbook of Palestine/5
• The Handbook of Palestine/preface

The principal authors which I identified, died in 1954 and 1969 respectively. This is a UK published work. It may be PD-US, but either of the 2 scans on IA can't be put on Commons as it's still in copyright in it's country of original publication. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Published 1922, so it is PD-US. As you note, scans would need to be uploaded locally. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

It might be helpful to just have a portion of this page dedicated purely to these moves from commons to WS which shouldn't need discussion, just administrator attention. MarkLSteadman (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Community discussion is useful because it's not certain a single contributor will be able to determine all the factors that go into actual copyright status (i.e. it might not actually be a problem). Having a separate process for these adds little (IMO), and costs extra management, so I'm not in favour of that. Just ping an admin if the issue is urgent (never hesitate to ping me for such things; I can't guarantee response time, but I certainly don't mind the ping).

However, in this case there appears to be nothing to do. None of the scans are actually on Commons, so here it's a matter of needing to upload them locally when they get uploaded. That doesn't require admin intervention. I can do the technical stuff of generating a DjVu, but that's a "geek" thing not an "admin" thing. Xover (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm UK based, so I can't reasonably put this work (for local upload) on WS:Scan Lab. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00 can you not access the IA scans in the UK? FWIW the scans I could find of this work are Internet Archive identifier: handbookofpalest00lukeuoft, Internet Archive identifier: handbookofpalest00luke and Internet Archive identifier: 39020001828394-thehandbookofpa. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 02:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@CalendulaAsteraceae: Work is still in copyright in the UK. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I can upload them here if needed. Yann (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The enWS and Commons policies are there to protect the WMF and the reusers of our uploaded material, and specify PD in the US and country of origin for the work. But the contributors, in this case uploaders, also need to take an extra factor into consideration: the jurisdiction in which they themselves are based. So a UK work to be hosted on the US-based servers... If you're an Aussie you need to also consider whether Australian copyright law might prevent you from legally uploading that work. That means that for all the works that are PD in the US but not in the UK (i.e. stuff that can be hosted on enWS but not on Commons), UK-based contributors potentially need to consider their legal position, risk of getting sued, etc.

This is why I keep saying that I think we should adopt the Commons approach of works being PD in both US and country of origin. That policy is based on Berne and means that if a work is compatible with the policy it is also going to be considered PD in almost all Berne countries, irrespective of what the country of origin happened to be. If you upload a policy-compliant work to Commons the chances of getting sued (legitimately) are essentially nil. If you do the same on enWS, anyone outside the US needs to make some pretty darned advanced risk assessments. I feel pretty confident in my own ability to so, but experience shows that that describes a small fraction of our community and contributors: the vast majority of them are running a significant risk on a daily basis while we have this policy. Combined with adopting the precautionary principle as policy, requiring PD in both US and country of origin would massively reduce the legal liability of both our contributors and reusers, and make these kinds of assessments a lot simpler. Xover (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

IMHO you exaggerate greatly the risk of being sued. For most copyright, nobody really cares. The risk exists only for some major authors and works. I don't advocate changing the policy, but that's the reality. Yann (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if the perception around this changes as the works affected move from the 1890s to the 1900s to the 1910s. Many books from that era such as illustrated children's books, classical translations, the EB1911 etc. are embedded in people's minds of what the public domain is. Among other things, the shorter copyright terms from that era means they have been in the public domain for decades in the US. MarkLSteadman (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

WotC OGL 1.0a

The following discussion is closed:

WotC OGL 1.0a is not compatible with enWS and texts only licensed under this license can not be hosted here..

In relation to this deletion discussion on Commons, I was wondering as to the opinion of enWS as to the compatibility of WotC’s OGL 1.0a. That OGL is used to license SRD, and SRD 5.1 has been licensed under CC BY 4.0 and is already being transcribed (here). But is the original license acceptable? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

My instinct says no, and I tend to agree with this article that the only aspects of a work that the OGL allows one to reuse are those aspects that are already uncopyrightable. I had a whole spiel about the w:idea–expression distinction written here, but I'm less sure of its correctness than I was. One confounding factor is that I think Wizards of the Coast uses the label "Open Game Content" more broadly than its strict definition in the license, and applies it wrongly to copyrightable content in addition to the mere functional rules (the 'ideas') that it seems to rightly apply to. I would appreciate being corrected by someone more informed than me. Shells-shells (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

WotC released a System Reference Document for three versions of D&D under the OGL, from which a number of companies have copied extensively and released a book under it that has its text copied and put online, with no response from them. I think it includes the text if you read it right, but it is poorly worded. I'm also skeptical of that author's claims about uncopyrightability; original text is almost always copyrightable, even if it's a thin copyright, and I can imagine a brief arguing that how long certain spells take is a feature of the fictional world, not rules mechanics.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Tentatively no, based on what I know of it, but as I haven't really dug into it I reserve the right to change my mind on that. --Xover (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
• No. The section about not declaring compatibility isn't Free, in my opinion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Prosfilaes: That restriction is on the “Product Identity,” which is not freely licensed under OGL v. 1.0a (only the “Open Game Content” is). Wouldn’t that be a trademark-related restriction, anyway? Or perhaps similar to a non-endorsement restriction in CC licenses? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    • As Shells-shells link says, it's a strong limitation on what you can do with the product. It's way more than a non-endorsement clause, as it prevents declaring compatibility, i.e. "designed to work with Microsoft Windows; this product is not approved or endorsed by Microsoft".--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter's First Presidential Nomination Acceptance Speech

The following discussion is closed:

No plausible assertion that the work is public domain or compatibly licensed.

At the time that the acceptance speech was given he had no role that put his works into the public domain, and I am unaware of any release that would allow us to host the work. Fair use would allow it, though that is not within our remit. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Where’s the notice? This is from 1976. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Where is the source to know whether it had a notice or not? It has no licence upon it, so that should be part of the discussion. Though it would help if you want to make such a claim that something more eloquent and reference-driven would be more helpful. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Index:Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986).pdf

The following discussion is closed:

Copyright-protected syllabus.

(User:CalendulaAsteraceae) This isn’t 477 U.S. 242 but 106 S.Ct. 2505. It is the edition of the opinion, with copyrighted syllabus. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea. Oh dear. Thank you for looking into this! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

National Anthem of Zimbabwe

The following discussion is closed:

Constitutional version is {{PD-EdictGov}}. Common lyrics are copyvio, and would in any case be out of scope in their current form (multiple versions on a single page).

The page of the National Anthem of Zimbabwe contains the so called constitutional lyrics and common lyrics of the English version of the anthem.

As for the constitutional lyrics, they are a part of the constitution, and so they should by in PD. However, I did not manage to to find whether the English version of the constitution was adopted or translated by the Zimbabwean government, or whether they adopted it in some of the local languages and the English version is a translation authored by somebody else.

The so called common lyrics do not seem to be a part of any governmental edict, although they were shared on web pages of some official institutions like Embassy of the Republic of Zimbabwe to USA, and so they are most probably not in the public domain. Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• The (current) Constitution was created as an act, Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act, 2013. All acts of Zimbabwe are printed in English. Thus, the constitution (and the so-called constitutional lyrics) are in the public domain as edicts of government. Notice was published in the Government Gazette, 91(38), and the original can be found here (among other places). The same lyrics are found in the National Anthem Act (cap. 10:15), which is an earlier enactment (see here, 1995/1996 emend. 2001). I really don’t know the source of the “common” lyrics. This official-looking source claims copyright, so I think it’s copyrighted, whatever the source may be. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

 Keep all national anthems we have treated as government edicts as there will be official proceedings and publication. In the very early days it seems that no one went hard on their copyright, and due to their official statuses I don't think that we want a deletionist approach on these docs. I do wish that we tidy up those pages so that they align with our one edition per page, and to align with a published version, though not at the expense of a void. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

addendum. Where we do have multiple copies per page, then we have a versions page (linked to WD appropriately), and disambiguate as required with appropriate WD items and links to the main subject. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that IF the text of the national anthem is included in legislation (which is often, though not always the case), then we should treat it as {{PD-EdictGov}} and keep it. However, we should verify this, as some national anthems are mentioned in legislation only by name, and are not themselves edicts of government. -- Beleg Âlt (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

What more verification of the "constitutional" lyrics are you looking for beyond the link to the Government Gazette and National Anthem Act linked above? MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh - I was referring to national anthems in general, and specifically those that don't provide the lyrics within official legislation. With regard to Zimbabwe, since it does provide the lyrics within the legislation, it would be PD in the US as far as I'm concerned. (That being said, IMO we should remove National Anthem of Zimbabwe and replace it with a redirect to the First Schedule of the Consititution of Zimbabwe) -- Beleg Âlt (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

A Cypherpunk's Manifesto

The following discussion is closed:

Despite the obstinate insistence of the anarchists, information wants to be free is not a valid copyright license. Being philosophically opposed to copyright does not make copyright go away. The productive and pragmatic way to achieve the goal of subverting copyright and sticking it to "the man" is to use an actual copyleft license, typically either {{CC-zero}} or {{CC-BY-SA 4.0}}. That would quickly and easily satisfy all parties involved.

This 1993 text, which was copied from https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html, has already been deleted from Wikisource as a copyvio twice: for the first time by EncycloPetey in April 2018, and now by me. However, the contributor David Howden argues by the sentence from the manifesto "Our code is free for all to use, worldwide." This sentence has not convinced me as it seems to refer to their computer codes and not to the text of the manifesto, but I have decided to ask the community to confirm the deletion or decide about undeleting. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Google Books provides a contemporary fixed version while https://cypherpunks.venona.com/raw/cyp-1993.txt has the original email messagge MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

He also is very much alive so someone can ping him nicely: https://theorg.com/org/tiledb/org-chart/eric-hughes MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I will reach out to him. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@MarkLSteadman: His published email bounced, and I can't find a newer one. If anyone can find a valid email for Hughes, I'd be willing to try again. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete. Whether it refers to the code or the text, that's not a valid license or public domain dedication. And even were we to accept a ad hoc permission statement as a license, this ad hoc statement doesn't even give the permissions we need (modifications). Please people, for all that is good and holy, use the Creative Commons licenses (including CC-Zero if that's what you want)! Copyright doesn't go away by pretending it doesn't exist; but appropriately designed copyleft licenses are an easy and effective way to subvert copyright law for the forces of good. --Xover (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with this. in 1993 when originally published they didn't exist, but now definitely. And in general, if he wanted to put it up on a page under a CC license today that would be trivial for him to do so. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free#Cypherpunk

  "attribution of will to an abstract human construct (information) has been adopted within a branch of the cypherpunk movement, whose members espouse a particular political viewpoint (anarchism). The construction of the statement takes its meaning beyond the simple judgmental observation, "Information should be free", by acknowledging that the internal force or entelechy of information and knowledge makes it essentially incompatible with notions of proprietary software, copyrights, patents, subscription services, etc. They believe that information is dynamic, ever-growing and evolving and cannot be contained within (any) ideological structure." David Howden (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

One could argue that the author's intent, as expressed through the famous quote "Information does not just want to be free, it longs to be free", is for the manifesto to be treated as free information. The Cypherpunk's Manifesto, by advocating for the free flow of information and opposing restrictions on its dissemination, embodies the very principles it seeks to promote. In this context, it could be seen as contradictory for the author to prevent others from freely distributing, modifying, or republishing the text. David Howden (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

 Delete - despite the sentiments expressed by Hughes, he does not include any explicit release of copyright that would make this document compatible with WS:COPY. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Hyperloop alpha

The following discussion is closed:

Not compatibly licensed.

Hi, I'm starting a new transcription here: Hyperloop_alpha

The source [6] doesn't specify which license its under, if any, nor does it specifically commit the document to the public domain. Page 57 says this instead:

The intent of this document has been to create a new open source form of transportation that could revolutionize travel. The authors welcome feedback and will incorporate it into future revisions of the Hyperloop project, following other open source models such as Linux. 6. Future Work Hyperloop is considered an open source transportation concept. The authors encourage all members of the community to contribute to the Hyperloop design process. Iteration of the design by various individuals and groups can help bring Hyperloop from an idea to a reality

Does this give us Fair use? Jaredscribe (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Unlike Wikipedia, Wikisource does not accept "fair use". The publication would have to state its license. The quote seems to indicate that the form of transportation is open-source, not the document. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Speech at Prayer Meeting, Sabarmati Ashram

The following discussion is closed:

Copyright in India until 1998 due to Gandhi's death in 1948, so restored to a pub. +95 term in the US by the URAA. The US copyrights thus expire no sooner than 2026 and 2027 (respectively), and possibly later depending on when they were first published (specific research would be needed for each text).

Hi, This is in the public domain in India, but still under a copyright in USA because of URAA (until 2026). Yann (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

And may be also Kingsley Hall Speech (until 2027), First Letter to Lord Irwin and Second Letter to Lord Irwin (until 2026). Yann (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Could anyone please look at this? Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The Times after 1927

The following discussion is closed:

The Times after 1927 (well, after 1928 now; less than 95 years ago in any case) may possibly be public domain in the US due to simultaneous publication (within 30 days) in the UK and US. This would require checking 1) that they were indeed simultaneously published, and 2a) that they failed to include a copyright notice or 2b) that they had a notice but failed to renew their copyright after 28 years.

Hi, Aren't these still under a copyright in USA because of URAA? Yann (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Depends on the form of the production and whether they are attributed works or not. PMA+70 cannot be attributed to anonymous works, especially as any were written by staff writers as part of their employment which gives them a different status through corporate copyright (assignment), is my understanding as was applying in 1996. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, "anything that was not PD in the UK on 1 January 1996" is the blanket statement; but as Billinghurst points out whether something was PD in the UK on that date would need closer checking. Absent specific investigation we'd have to assume it was not PD and thus restored by the URAA.

However, it would not take a lot of evidence to convince me that The Times of London was simultaneously published in the US (issues sold in newsstands or delivered to US subscribers within thirty days). If so it would be a US work for the purposes of Berne, which in turn is the basis for Commons licensing policy, meaning lack of copyright notice etc. would put it into the public domain. If so it might still be protected in the UK, but neither Commons policy nor other Berne countries who apply the rule of the shortest term would care. I think simultaneous publication is pretty likely around 1927, but we'd still need to find some evidence to support it. Xover (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't check, but weren't any copyright notices in The Times? But yes, if we consider these US works, copyright also needed to be renewed for that period. Yann (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Index:Astounding Science Fiction (1955-07).djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Copyvio (already deleted).

I've found 2 apparent renewals for indvidual contributions in this issues.

• RE0000169476

and https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&Search%5FArg=%E2%81%A0The%20Waitabits&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=Qf4iQXo84RKNuFZqGI1G1dnoj&SEQ=20230506030916&SID=19 RE0000177292] in respect of The Waitabits

• RE0000186779 in respect of In clouds of glory.

File has been nominated for deletion at Commons - commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Astounding Science Fiction (1955-07).djvu ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• The file has been deleted. The index page and several individual pages (see here) need to be deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Index:Soldier poets, songs of the fighting men, 1916.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

First published in the UK in 1916, and not published in the US until November 1919. As such any still non-expired pma. 70 copyrights in the UK makes this ineligible for hosting on Commons, and the file will have to be transferred locally.

Collection of works by British authors, some of which are still copyright in the United Kingdom. It's marked as PD-US on Commons, which I am less sure about given that the title page says London.

File should ideally be localised unless more information is found. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• There is a U.S. copyright notice on p. 6, which should count for PD-US. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Why? It was a requirement for anyone in the world to have a copyright notice of they wanted copyright in the US. An attempt to follow that requirement doesn't mean it's a US work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• A work which claims copyright in the United States is subject to the rules regarding copyright in the United States, so a work published with a U.S. copyright notice is in the public domain (by the terms of PD-US) for that cause. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The US doesn't become the source nation by virtue of a copyright notice. Everything published in the world is subject to US copyright law in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Index:Fiddlers house Colum.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Transwikied to enWS and tagged as copyvio at Commons.

PD US by date, but not necessarily PD in Ireland so cannot be hosted on Commons. The author died in the 1970's, and the scans are of a Dublin published edition. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Figure 3 NPTEL Interface.jpg

The following discussion is closed:

Already deleted due to WS:PD#File:Figure 3 NPTEL Interface.jpg + File:Figure 2 CEC LOR Interface.jpg

Screenshot from an allegedly open educational resource, but the current website says it's CC BY-NC-SA; that is, it has a non-commercial restriction. Xover (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sp1nd01: who uploaded. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The source file should be cleaned for that one chapter of screenshots of websites. Some of the files were deleted on Commons but without updating the wilkisource pages / marking as removed due to the copyright violation. MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Figure 2 CEC LOR Interface.jpg

The following discussion is closed:

Already deleted due to WS:PD#File:Figure 3 NPTEL Interface.jpg + File:Figure 2 CEC LOR Interface.jpg

Screenshot from an presumably open learning resource, but I've been unable to find the actual website to check the license (cf. the above nom). Xover (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The current version * believe is this: https://cec.nic.in/cec/oer but I have not been able to find a Wayback link to the version captured in the document. MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Index:The English hymnal (1906).djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Still in copyright in the UK. File moved locally and tagged at Commons.

One of the editors/compilers appears to be w:Ralph Vaughn Williams, who died in 1958. I'm not sure if this can be hosted on Commons as they were a British. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

First published in the UK, and the Preface is by Williams, so this is certainly still in copyright in the UK until the end of 1958 + 70 = 2028. But as a pre-pub. +95 publication it is also certainly public domain in the US. Xover (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

This would seem to be an instance where 'local' hosting would be entirely appropriate. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I've also found that with the pre 1922 hymnals I've encountered it's generally only a few specific collected hymns or music that are 'problematic', and that can be solved by not transcribing those indvidual items with a note in the transcription. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

There should be no reason to omit items from a pre-1922 publication. EnWS only follows US copyright law, and all pre-1922 publications are PD in the US. But yes, local hosting is necessary for such publications. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments and suggestions on the Generalplan "Ost" of the Reichsführer of the SS troops

The following discussion is closed:

Copyvio.

No source of the English translation given and so without having a proof of a free licence we should assume it is copyrighted. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Note the same contributor first linked to the version (in Russian) and then posted the same translation on the Wikipedia page. w:en:Talk:Generalplan_Ost#Full_translation_of_the_Generalplan_Ost_document, although presumably the Russian version is itself a translation from German. Note it is different form the translation in IA. Also, Wetzel died in 1975 so it also may still be copyrighted under PMA + 70 and then URAA restoration as well... It does have a Nuremberg Trial number: NG-2325. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: =--Xover (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The House in the Oaks

The following discussion is closed:

Copyvio. Derleth completed the fragment by Howard, and his 1971 publication in Dark Things was the first publication of Howard's part too. It was first published without Derleth's contributions in The Collected Poetry of Robert E. Howard (2009.

A short story fragment by Robert E. Howard (d. 1936) that was apparently only published posthumously. Unlicensed and not scan-backed.

According to this webpage, it was published many times, starting in 1971 in something called "Dark Things", publisher Arkham House. Our transcription is apparently based on the 2003 version though, or: "THE HOWARD READER #8, Marek, 2003 (original fragment, as “The House”)".

Being that this was published only posthumously, the terms mentioned in Template:PD-US-unpublished do not seem to apply here. I think we can safely say this is under copyright. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• Keep (I think). The “version” published in Dark Things was a complete story (written by another writer) based on the fragment. The first publication of the fragment was in The Howard Reader, which does meet PD-US-unpublished. Don’t take this for granted, I might have missed a publication, so make sure to check before keeping. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The Hacker Manifesto

The following discussion is closed:

Copyvio. "Copyleft" shenanigans aside, the text was published with a notice, which the author has since confirmed, and it is thus still in copyright in the US. If the author wishes to apply an actual copyleft license they can easily do so by emailing VRT confirming {{CC-zero}} or {{CC-BY-SA 4.0}} or similar.

Originally published in an e-zine Phrack in 1986, archived at http://phrack.org/issues/7/3.html#article , but no licensing can be found anywhere, so it should probably be considered copyrighted. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

It does say at the bottom "© Copyleft 1985-2021, Phrack Magazine." but I can't see it explains what that means. -- Beardo (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see, I did not notice it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

w:Talk:Hacker_Manifesto#NPOV has the author offering a license of "I hereby grant Wikipedia the right to publish the Manifesto, as long as it includes 'Copyright 1986 by Loyd Blankenship. Used with permission'." One could contact the author; he's alive and on LinkedIn, from a quick search.

It's a little recent for me to be comfortable, but it's possible it was published without copyright notice and nothing was done to fix that in the appropriate time period.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

For a 1986 work without a notice to be subject to copyright it needs to have been registered within five years, this doesn't seem to have happened (anyway I would be surprised if this kind of publication was). So it would most likely be PD-US-no-notice-post-1977. AlmTec (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the template for now since I haven't been able to find any evidence to the contrary. If anyone here knows US copyright law better than me feel free to remove it. AlmTec (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

And it has been deleted from here previously - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hacker_Manifesto -- Beardo (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

20,000 Leagues Under the Seas (Walter)

The following discussion is closed:

No compatible license in evidence.

This 1999 translation was donated to Project Gutenberg, but not released into the public domain; it’s one of several instances where Project Gutenberg bends their usual criteria to include a reliable English translation of a famous work (another such is Kafka's "Metamorphosis").

Walter's translation is clearly labeled © 1999, so it doesn't look like it should be here. --Lemuellio (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Undelete The Story of Bonnie and Clyde

The following discussion is closed:

First published in El Paso Times the day after Parker and Barrow was killed, based on copy released by the local police department, but this cannot be said to have been an authorised publication. Also published in a book three months later with involvement of her mother and sister, allegedly from a copy they had received from Parker shortly before her death (which is very likely the same copy the police released a transcript of), but neither of them were legal heirs of Parker. Legal heir in the absence of a will would be Parker's husband, Roy Thornton; but as Thornton was in jail at the time, and spent most of the rest of his life in prison (modulo an escape or two), it is exceedingly unlikely that he would be involved in any publication. After his death in 1937 it would then be his heirs who could effect an authorised publication, and these heirs are now starting to become so peripheral that it seems less likely that they would be involved in any such venture. Since the poem was so widely available in newspapers etc. it also seems less likely that anyone would try to track down the heirs after 1937, and both less likely and harder to do as the years passed. In the absence of any evidence of something that could be an authorized publication in the intervening time, it therefore appears most likely that the poem was legally unpublished for copyright purposes until 2003 when a (now-expired) pma. 70 copyright term came into effect. The conclusion is not particularly firm, and any plausible information indicating an authorized publication before 2003 should lead to a reassessment.

Moving discussion from Scriptorium:

I think, there is no reason to keep this text deleted. It was published in a 1934 book (page 242) that is PD due to not renewed copyright. Or is this a complete different text than I think? Ankry (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ankry: Undeletion requests go on WS:CV (section heading "Undelete The Story of Bonnie and Clyde"). And the text at The Story of Bonnie and Clyde appears to be the same poem included in the book you link (I haven't checked textual differences, but it looks like the same work).

But in this case… publication for copyright purposes requires it to be by or with consent of the author. This poem was written by Bonnie Parker and was never published during her lifetime. According to the book she gave one physical copy of the poem to her sister two weeks before her death, but this is neither publication nor transfer of title. In other words, figuring out whether that book constitutes publication for copyright purposes involves gaining knowledge of the specific chains of inheritance, wills, any contracts in play (like any contract between Jan I. Fortune and the Parker family), etc. It was rushed to press three months after Parker's death, and so far as I can see mainly credits Emma, Parker's sister, who is unlikely to have had legal title to Parker's copyrights at that time. I don't think this is very likely to be PD, and I very much doubt we'd be able to find sufficient evidence to make that conclusion in any case. Xover (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Xover: It was published by her mother, who is most likely her heir. Ankry (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Ankry (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Her husband, Roy Thornton, would be her heir in lieu of any will (which seems unlikely). When was it originally published? If it wasn't legally published originally, it was almost certainly legally unpublished in 2002 and thus left copyright in 1934+70+1 = 2005. I don't see it likely that it's still in copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Pre-1964 Terry Southern works

The following discussion is closed:

Based on comments here and the contentious history of the author's works it seems clear we must assume their works are protected by copyright. There may be individual works for which this is not the case, but these need to be assessed and researched individually.

I've been searching Terry Southern in the Public Catalog of the Copyright Office (as post-1950 works, they should be there), but I cannot find any renewals for his works done in time when it was required by law (1985-1988). I've found V2114P169 (for a work titled Mannequins), PAu000911640 (The Telephone, screenplay), SR0000106264 (an audiobook of Candy), and SR0000106579 (an audiobook of The Magic Christian). Would it be safe to say they're in the public domain? Lugamo94 (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with this author, but it sounds as though at least one of them is a screenplay, and dramatic works are listed separately from other works, and so have to be looked up in a separate volume. Did you check the dramatic works listings? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, the records I've listed are all there is associated to his name during the relevant time period (1985-1988). His first three works were published between 1958 (Flash and Filigree and Candy -the latter written with Mason Hoffenberg, who also has no renewals for the book to his name [or anything at all] during the relevant time period-) and 1959 (The Magic Christian). I did not set search limits other than the name of the author(s), so in theory it should cover anything registered with the Copyright Office. Lugamo94 (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Registrations aren't always made by or under the name of the author. I've seen dramatic works registered by the publisher. Best to use title search as well as author. And where did you do your search? For renewals of dramatic works, I know of no single location that will allow you to search all records. I only know of places with scans of the individual six-month collections of registrations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

"Best to use title search as well as author."

With Flash and Filigree I got: RE0000318411 (an undated cancelled registration) and TX0005789869 (a registration from 2002, which says that this work is protected thanks to the GATT/URAA restoration). I do not know how the URAA applies to a work by an American author first published in the United States by Coward-McCann -an American publisher- (source), but I guess it has to be discarded.

Candy has too many entries between 1985 and 1987 to list them here but, from what I could find, none of them are related to the Southern book.

For The Magic Christian I got: V2122P118 (an assigment of copyrights from Republic Pictures -home video distributors of the film adaptation- to the Bank of America), PAu000724669/PAu000760095/PAu000798661/PAu000850477 (copyright registrations by Magic Christian Music), V2246P476/V2239P105 (film copyrights used as mortgage with the City National Bank), and finally SR0000106579 (which is the audiobook of the same book narrated by its original author).

"And where did you do your search?"

Here. I thought that all copyright registrations and renewals (still required for all pre-1964 works) made from 1978 and onwards were present here. Lugamo94 (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit: For The Magic Christian, there is TX0005789868 (also from 2002), which is the same as Flash and Filigree. For Candy, there's TX0005190349 (from 2000). Same as earlier examples. Well, the topic is over. --Lugamo94 (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I note that the wikipedia article on Candy says "Southern and Hoffenberg battled Olympia Press publisher Maurice Girodias over the story's copyright after the book was published in North America by Putnam under the authors' own names and became a best-seller." and "The Candy Men makes a lengthy investigation of the rampant sharing of the inadvertently uncopyrighted original novel" (referring to a book by Southern's son Nile). -- Beardo (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Aha ! https://www.dlib.org/dlib/july08/hirtle/07hirtle.html#23 states:

"Perhaps more problematic are American authors who live and work abroad. An example is the comic novel Candy, written by the American screenwriters Terry Southern and Mason Hoffenberg. It was first published in Paris by the Olympia Press in 1958, but not registered for copyright in the US. Subsequent versions appeared in the US starting in the mid-1960s. One would search in vain the Stanford Copyright Renewal Database for the work, and so might conclude that it is in the public domain in the US.

"Candy was written, however, when Southern was living in Geneva, Switzerland. Because Southern was domiciled in an eligible country (Switzerland) and first publication occurred in an eligible country (France), the estates of Southern and Hoffenberg were able to secure in 2000 copyright protection for the novel using the provisions of copyright restoration." with a footnote - "The novel was registered with the Copyright Office on 4 Dec. 2000, #TX0005190349." which helps explain that one, at least. -- Beardo (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

RE: Where to Search. Yes, that website should work provided that the temporal criteria are met. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Justice Hilton Must Also Go

The following discussion is closed:

While I am personally hesitant to accept claims that one of two signatories to a letter is somehow not an author, there were no objections to this argument in the discussion and the nominator appears to have accepted it. In addition the potential copyright will expire in just 3 years anyway, so the risk of a bad call here seems limited.

Is Batukeshwar Dutt a coauthor of this letter? It's not clear to me whether he helped write the letter or just signed it. If he is an author, the work doesn't qualify for {{PD-India}} (and won't be PD-US for another 3 years), because Dutt died in 1965. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

This letter was in relation to a case against him and Dutt; Dutt co-signed it in that respect, but he did not write it. Singh wrote a number of other letters of the same sort, one of which was also co-signed by Dutt (and others). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 courtesy ping@Bodhisattwa: — billinghurst sDrewth 01:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

As @TE(æ)A,ea.: said, Bhagat Singh wrote those letters and Dutt, as a fellow revolutionary and accused in the same court case, co-signed those letters. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, that's good to know! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Georgia Guidestones Text

The following discussion is closed:

I am not at all certain this is something we should be hosting for any number of reasons, but in copyright terms, absent evidence of registration or simlar, this does appear to be {{PD-US-no notice}}.

Seems to be some monumental or sign transcription. I haven't explored it, though at base level it seems out of place. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. This is the text of the w:Georgia Guidestones, a famous political monument recently (2022) bombed and then removed. The monuments, intended for permanent existence, the inscription thereto, needs must follow the strictures; and as it has not, it is in the public domain. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

James Baldwin debates William F. Buckley Jr. (1965)

The following discussion is closed:

A speech is a performance of a work, not a general publication. While copyright pops into existence the second a work is fixed in a tangible medium, the term of protection runs from the instance of first general publication.

Transcript of a 1965 speech. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete. Tagged copyvio, it will be deleted if still unlicensed.--Jusjih (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. I am the one who uploaded this speech. I now realize I should have studied its copyright status more carefully. Please delete, and delete speedily. Sorry for the noise. Update: I have blanked the page in accordance with Speedy deletion § 7. BurningLibrary (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. If the speech is under copyright, is it possible to find out when said copyright expires? For example, the page of Author:Martin Luther King notes that the copyright of the "I Have a Dream" speech expires in the U.S. in the year 2038. Maybe a similar note could be added to Author:James Arthur Baldwin as well. BurningLibrary (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment what was the process for copyrighting a speech at that time ? --

Beardo (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Beardo: Help:Beginner's guide to copyright states:

From 1 January 1964 renewal was no longer necessary and the period of copyright is now 95 years after publication.

If we apply this calculation to Baldwin's speech, which was held in 1965, then the copyright should expire in the year 2060 (unless the copyright is renewed in the meantime). Update: I have added a copyright notice to Author:James Arthur Baldwin and unlinked the page. BurningLibrary (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@BurningLibrary - yes, but from 1964 to 1978, there was still a requirement for "a correct copyright notice" - I don't know how that would be for a speech. -- Beardo (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Beardo: I take it that you are referencing this part of Help:Beginner's guide to copyright:

Before 1978, a work published without a correct copyright notice automatically entered the public domain.

A case could be made, but probably not in this case. Baldwin and Buckley were in legal proceedings with The New York Times because the newspaper published a transcript of the debate without permission. This is related in The Fire Is Upon Us, a book about Baldwin's speech. BurningLibrary (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

This case may be relevant - w:Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc. -- Beardo (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Beardo: Here are some relevant passages from w:Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc.:

When King delivered his speech publicly to a large audience, both live and televised, its text had not been submitted to the Register of Copyright to obtain federal copyright protection. … However, King registered the text of his speech the next month as being an unpublished work and after his death his estate filed this lawsuit in order to enforce the copyright. … Thus, King's estate is able to require a license fee for redistribution of the speech's text, whether in a television program, a history book, a dramatic re-enactment, or otherwise.

And here is an excerpt from The Fire Is Upon Us, a book about Baldwin's speech:

Bradley wrote a one-sentence reply: "It's perfectly okay to reprint [the] Cambridge Union debate since there's no question of copyright." Baldwin's representatives disagreed, and called the Times "to complain that [they] had intended to sell the thing elsewhere" and the March 7 publication undermined those plans. … A few days later, Thomas R. McMullin of the Times legal department circulated a memo regarding "Copyright Protection Available to Messrs. Baldwin and Buckley in Speech Delivered before the Cambridge Union Society and Subsequently Printed in the Times Magazine." … "I was amazed to find," McMullin wrote, "that the law is now well established—that the delivery of a speech before the public does not constitute publication of that speech so as to deprive the speaker of a copyrightable interest in his work." In other words, "I conclude that Messrs. Buckley and Baldwin may have a substantial claim against the Times under the common law of copyright for the publication in the Times of their debate."

I conclude that the text cannot be republished, and have cast my vote for speedy delete. BurningLibrary (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• (This is sort of unrelated, but I think the Martin Luther King Jr. speech expires in 2059, not 2038. The 70 year PMA rule in the US I think only applies to works that were published after 1977. But, that's more of a minor detail that we can figure out in a few decades.) PseudoSkull (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  @PseudoSkull - the case mentioned above may have more detail on that. -- Beardo (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

 Comment is it a speech or a debate? We are needing to apply US law; UK law informs this discussion, not determines it. If this was something happened solely within the UK, then it would be copyright. If it was broadcast to the US and without notice, or published here without notice, then different story. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

To the 6.5 million Build, Build, Build Team

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted. Community does not seem to be convinced it is in public domain in the US or it has been sufficiently released under a free licence. A confirming email about releasing the work has been sent to VRT, but the VRT team is reluctant to answer some questions about the release and dispel doubts. For future, it might be useful if en.ws community had a member in the VRT team to check similar releases if they are in doubt.

I am not sure about this one. It is a speech by Anna Mae Yu Lamentillo, a Filipino government Official. However, the speech seems to be more a part of an election campaing than a work of the government. What do others think? -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep.—See comment below. Based on my reading of the language behind PD-PhilGovDoc, any speech publicly delivered by an official of the Philippines is in the public domain. In addition, this speech in particular feels more official than not. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Although To the 6.5 million Filipino People (which is the same speech) should be deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

    The speech was delivered while she was an incumbent official. It is part of public domain. I agree to delete "To the 6.5 million Filipino people". It was a duplication. Katipuneragabriela (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

•  Delete. It is possible this is PD in the Philippines as a government work, but I see no rationale for why this might be PD or compatibly licensed in the US. --Xover (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  The United States and the Philippines have signed a Treaty on Intellectual Property Rights in 1979 that specifically addresses copyright protection and extends reciprocity requirements. This treaty includes provisions related to copyright protection and reciprocal treatment of intellectual property rights between the two countries.

  The treaty aims to provide a framework for the protection of intellectual property, including copyright, and to establish reciprocal treatment of intellectual property rights between the United States and the Philippines. Katipuneragabriela (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• Delete per Xover. I had thought of it when I was looking over the text of PD-PhilGovDoc, but that release covers more ground than PD-EdictGov (and PD-USGov does not stand for the proposition that the U.S. would not enforce similar non-enforcement clauses in other copyright laws). While I hold out PD-EdictGov to cover a fairly substantial range of material, moreso than other users, I don’t see how it can cover an ordinary speech by a government official, related to a policy (and the implementation of that policy) but not connected to any specific piece of legislation or specific, definite, legal-as-an-act action of an executive official (whether this specific speaker or another person). So, I rescind my prior !vote. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  In the Philippines, Section 176 of Republic Act No. 8293, also known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, addresses the issue of government works and the lack of copyright protection for such works. Specifically, Section 176 states:

  "Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 172 and 173, no protection shall extend, under this law, to any idea, procedure, system, method or operation, concept, principle, discovery or mere data as such, even if they are expressed, explained, illustrated or embodied in a work; News of the day and other miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press information; Any official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, as well as any official translation thereof; Any official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, as well as any official translation thereof; Any official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, as well as any official translation thereof; Any work of the Government of the Philippines."

  This provision clarifies that works of the Government of the Philippines are not eligible for copyright protection under Philippine law, effectively placing them in the public domain. Therefore, speeches and other works created by government officials in the Philippines are generally considered part of the public domain and are not subject to copyright protection under Philippine law. Katipuneragabriela (talk) 09:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  • Supplemental to my previous comment (per new information below): I still think this should be deleted. The three new editors who have suddenly appeared to defend the inclusion of this speech have a combined 23 edits between them (not including edits relating to this discussion); there is no “trust” to be had for people without any local experience. The continued refusal to provide basic information confirms the obvious suspicions raised by this course of events. The strangeness of the situation leaves me more confident in my previously stated !vote. While it would be nice to have confirmation of non-enforcement (like that which is documented here), there is of course no such evidence provided. The bare assertions of acceptability provided below provide no assurances of anything. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello. My removal of the {{copyvio}} template was reverted, though a permissison tag exists on the talk page. Please advise what is missing. --Krd (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Krd: See the edit summary. Your removal of the tag was reverted for the same reason you'd revert the removal of c:Template:Delete at Commons when there is an open discussion. And the problem is that the text in question has no license tag (cf. c:Template:No license since), and the OTRS tag you added contains zero information that would let us determine whether the permission is valid or what the resulting license would be. For example, who provided the permission? How did they document that they have standing to provide permission? What specific permission (license) did they give? Xover (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course a VRT user is welcome to close a DR a Commons for copyright issues only. Anyway, my question was where to put that, which template where? Isn't cc-by-sa-4.0+gfdl the standard license here? Krd (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Krd: Well, VRT volunteers are certainly not allowed to close community discussions on enWS (for obvious reasons).

Yes, CC BY-SA 4.0 + GFDL is the default license for user-generated content first published on enWS. Any third party content or content first published elsewhere—such as an image from Flickr, a (scan of a) book first published in London in 1942, or a speech by a Philippine government official—must either be documented to be public domain in the US, or must be documented to have been licensed under a compatible license.

So we get back to my previous questions: who (what legal entity) provided permission, how do they have standing to do so, and what specific permission did they provide? Xover (talk) 07:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Krd: Ping? Xover (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately  Delete—it's great that Philippines government documents are released into their public domain (a fun fact for when I go there soon!). But this doesn't necessarily translate to the United States public domain. While it's pretty unlikely that a copyright would ever be enforced in the US for an obscure document published by a Filipino government official on the other side of the world, if the US law is technically there it's not free by our standards, so has to be deleted on WMF projects. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems the VRT volunteer will not answer the simple questions raised above by Xover, so I have tried to ask them at the VRT noticeboard. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

VRT volunteers are not allowed to disclose information about the confidential emails to VRT. We all have signed a non-disclosure agreement with the WMF. I can confirm the permission for publication of this text is authentic. This is a matter of trusting the VRT agent Krd (as well as myself). We are not allowed to answer the questions. Anybody can apply to become a VRT agent and support the team and help with this work. I do not know which trusted Wikisource editors have access to VRT; they could check ticket:2023120410006742. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Delete I think the questions were absolutely harmless, not asking any potentially sensitive information, so without any detailed knowledge about the alleged permission I vote for deletion (just reminding that we have already had untrustworthy VRT permissions before, like here.) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  By virtue of the non-disclosure agreement with the WMF that @Ellywa has stated above, VRT agents cannot disclose any non-public information which includes the answer to "who" i.e. to publicly state who sent the permissions (the identity is a non-public and sensitive information). I have been through the ticket and I also confirm that the permissions permission for publication of this text is authentic and fine. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 01:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

   Keep Changing my vote for keep per these answers at Commons. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  @TheAafi (CC Ellywa and Krd): I'm not asking about the person talking to VRT. The issue is which legal entity (which could be a physical person, or it could be a government department, or it could be a private business, or…; but is in any case orthogonal to the issue of who is talking to VRT) is asserted to be the owner of the copyright and thus to have standing to license it. It has been asserted (by the now-globally locked user Katipuneragabriela) that the text falls under c:Template:PD-PhilippinesGov. If that assertion is correct it means the author of the text for copyright purposes is the Philippine government, and Anna Mae Yu Lamentillo in her personal capacity (or her agents) do not have standing to license it. If, however, the author for copyright purposes is Anna Mae Yu Lamentillo, then no employee or agent of the Philippine government has standing to license it. Based on the information I have available currently it is not clear to me whether Lamentillo was an officer of the Philippine government or a private contractor at the time this speech was made. It is also not clear to me whether this is a text originally in English (why would a speech, which this has been asserted to be, to construction workers in the Philippines be held in English?), or whether the English version is a translation of a Filipino (Tagalog) original (which would have separate copyright). We cannot have a double standard where going through VRT skips over getting clarity on issues like this.

  It also makes a big difference whether the text is covered by c:Template:PD-PhilippinesGov (which may or may not be PD in the US), or whether it is licensed under a compatible license (worldwide) by the copyright holder. Which means that the information provided in this reply over on Commons is rather critical.

  We have, unfortunately, had previous experience of government officials (although usually former government officials) attempting to use Wikisource for self-promotion, either themselves or through an agent. A common feature of these instances has been vehement assertions that the texts are public domain as government works, until the implications of that becomes inconvenient (for example because the relevant jurisdiction has no government works exception) and they switch to asserting private ownership of the copyright. Xover (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I Am a Cat

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as a copyvio of the 1972 translation of the work.

Incomplete work added here as a second-hand transcription from https://web.archive.org/web/20150528010449/http://www.any-read.net/read/I_Am_a_Cat_I/index.html, where it was archived from a page that does not exist anymore. The contributor claimed it to be a 1918 edition, translated by Yasotarō Mōri. I failed to find such an edition and the text we have seems identical to the 1972 translation by Aiko Ito and Graeme Wilson (see e.g. here), which is still copyrighted. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Related AN thread: WS:AN#Cannot create page — "Image abuser"?. Previous copyright discussion: WS:CV#I Am a Cat.

I have read neither and I cannot vouch for any information or conclusions there. I just recalled the title and am linking the discussions for reference. Xover (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

 Delete The introduction says "Sōseki’s modernity is even more strikingly illustrated by the fact that sixty years ago the characters in I Am a Cat" which is good evidence the introduction is from after 1966 and is the introduction to the Ito / Wilson translation. There is a 1918 translation by Mori of Botchan which is a different work by Sōseki. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Keep (except for the introduction). The original translation is older; there is a scan already uploaded here, and I have the second among my personal files (somewhere). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: That is a completely different translation. Compare I Am a Cat/Chapter 1 with Page:I am a Cat (1906).djvu/15. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea.: Do you have a response to Jan's observation here? Is your !vote still "keep" on this text in light of the differences? Xover (talk) 10:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

After two months without the rationale being disproved, I think we can delete the work now. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Queen's Message on the Handover of Hong Kong

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted with uncertain license.

The text is a transcript of the Queen's Message on the Handover of Hong Kong read out by the Prince of Wales in 30 June 1997, who was in Hong Kong at that time. Assuming the original YouTube source is a pure sound broadcast (as it was removed on YouTube, using the most favourable condition), it is copyrighted for 50 years per section 18 of the Copyright Ordinance (note that the Ordinance had commenced 3 days ago). As it is still copyrighted in Hong Kong, it is also unlikely that it will be in American public domain. The text is therefore a copyright violation and should be deleted.廣九直通車 (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• If this is considered to be a work of the Queen, then it shouldn’t matter where it was delivered; but I don’t know if a speech by the Queen can have PD-EdictGov (or U.K.-equivalent PD-USGov) status. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Even if we only consider UK copyright, no, as Crown Copyright extends for 50 years, and a normal speech certainly don't suffice for {{PD-EdictGov}}.廣九直通車 (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

    As interpreting US law, it would appear to be an edict of the head of state, which is government, I think that it is acceptable. We are not Commons, UK law does not apply directly. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

    @Billinghurst: Please refer to the definition of "edict" that would be free from American copyright at {{PD-EdictGov}}. Clearly the Queen's speech doesn't fall into any of legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials as stated in Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jusjih (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Translation:Ritha' al-Andalus

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as non-compliant user translation. If the scans+indexes etc. are added the text can be undeleted and userified to use as a basis for a compliant Wikisource translation (if wanted). Any admin can help with that, or an undeletion request can be posted on WS:PD.

Translation is credited to James T. Monroe, Hispano-Arabic Poetry, 1974, p. 332–334. Is there reason to think that translation is out-of-copyright? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• I don’t believe that’s correct. This translation cites that Monroe to give interpretations of certain generic phrases (e.g., “greatest knight”) as specific items (e.g., “Ibn Dhi Yazan”). It does not appear to me that, in so doing, a copying of that translation is implied. However, putting that aside, the translation has no source. (For that matter, looking at Monroe, this is a very different translation. The first line is “In all that exists, there is imperfection—therefore, let no human be deceived by the beauty of life” here, and “Everything declines after reaching perfection, therefore let no man be beguiled by the sweetness of a pleasant life” there.) This thus appears to be a user translation, absent evidence to the contrary. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Revision history for the page suggests it was a cut&paste move from enWP. The contributor has been indeffed there for socking (so caution is required when evaluating possibly tainted evidence: no more assumption of good faith for that contributor), but the contemporary revision history at w:Ritha' al-Andalus suggests the text in question was added 3+ months previously by إيان. The edit that added it gives this as the source in its edit summary. The source given looks plausible for our text, which would make this a user translation that doesn't conform with our translations policy. The source also does not evidence any compatible licensing, despite the claim in the edit summary, so OTRS/VRT would be required. @Ian: do you have any input here? I don't suppose this poem has been published, in Arabic, in book form long enough ago to be public domain? User translations at enWS are supposed to be backed by a scan of a previously published edition (this is our version of w:WP:V) and transcribed at the source language Wikisource first, and then a translation added here. It'd be a bit of fiddling (steep learning curve) to get this policy-compliant, but the community here tends to be a helpful bunch (and even more so when trying to save a text such as this). If you're willing to do the hoop-jumping I'm sure we can find someone to provide the hand-holding. :) Xover (talk) 06:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Xover, thanks for looking into this and contacting me. I can't see it, but the translation I think is mine, first published on an old blog of mine. I did this all years ago when I was less familiar with the technicalities of WP and copyright policies. Looks like I tried to add it to the WP article and another user moved it to Wikisource.

The original Arabic text of the 13th century poem is a canonical text of Arabic literature and is definitely in public domain. It appears in Ahmad al-Maqqari's نفح الطيب من غصن الأندلس الرطيب, known in French as his Analectes. A complete Arabic edition was published by the Bulaq Press in 1863. A scan can be found at pages 487 and 488 of the fourth volume of this edition. إيان (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps should have pinged @Xover in my response. إيان (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

[ For future archeologists, the scan referenced above lives at Internet Archive identifier: waq11717. The specific file link above is an internal download link that will become invalid in the future. ]

@إيان: Thanks for the ping.

Copyright-wise we're going to need OTRS/VRT verification. The translation was published on your blog first and added to Wikipedia afterwards, and your blog didn't have any visible licensing statement, so we'd need verification through VRT that you're the author and that your informed intent is to publish it under an open license (CC BY-SA 3.0 + GFDL, by default).

A, perhaps, bigger problem is that as a user translation (vs. a published translation) our policy is that a scan of the original text should first be uploaded (to Commons) and transcribed (what we call "proofread") at the original language Wikisource (in this case Arabic, I think). Only then can we host a user translation here. As mentioned, that's quite a lot of hoop to jump through, but there are reasons for all of it (long version on request). You up for it? Xover (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Xover, thanks for providing the permanent link and all your guidance so far. I tried the contact form on the archived website and it doesn't seem to work. The blog is now hosted at https://ianborim.wordpress.com/, with the relevant translation at https://ianborim.wordpress.com/2016/05/09/requiem-andalusia-رثاء-الأندلس/. The contact me form at https://ianborim.wordpress.com/contact-التواصل/ works, if OTRS can contact me there.

I've uploaded the scan of the Arabic text in Maqqari's Nafah at-Tib to Commons here. إيان (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems it's already on Arabic WikiSource, here. إيان (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@إيان: Oh, excellent. But it's not backed by a scan. See Help:Adding texts. Xover (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Xover, is the indexing supposed to be done on WikiSource in Arabic? The Arabic version of Help:Adding texts makes no mention of indexing. إيان (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. Missed this. There needs to be an Index on each project; on arWS to transcribe the Arabic original, and on enWS to transcribe the English translation. If arWS doesn't use the Proofread Page system then we simply have an incompatibility of policy for Arabic texts. Xover (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

 Comment Translation: namespace indicates user-contributed translation. So there is obviously doubt about larger aspects of this. So is the translation sourced from the original text and an alternate translation, or is it something else? — billinghurst sDrewth 00:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

It looks to be user contributed, and just needs to be properly setup in the ns. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

 Delete I do not think it is enough that we think it is a WS user's translation, this would have to be explicitely expressed by the user. Otherwise it should be deleted as a text without a clear licence. Besides, as mentioned above, even if it were a user's translation, it was not based on a scan supported original language work present on the appropriate language wiki, and so should be deleted anyway. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC) Sorry, I must have been blindfolded when I wrote this. Now waiting whether the original will be scanbacked.--Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

On Fate

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted due to multiple problems with unclear licensing, being an excerpt, an unpublished translation not complying with policies, etc. There is enough doubt / things that are unclear here that an undeletion discussion may be able to tease out the necessary information / tweak the text to comply with policy; but that requires active participation and better policy understanding from the original contributor. The copyright issues are not so severe / clear-cut that the text cannot be temporarily undeleted to inform such a discussion (but only temporarily unless the discussion resolves all the issues).

According to information at Author:Dermot P. Curtin, this translation was published in 2022. Without evidence that it is in public domain, or under another Wikisource-compatible license, this work cannot be hosted here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• See also Section V (which should be a sub-page), which contains the content of the translation. According to First Book of Ethiopian Maccabees, Mr. Curtin has released at least some of his translation work into the public domain in the past; perhaps he has done so here. It is not clear to me where it was first published, however, or even that 2022 is the correct date. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  The published source bears a copyright held by Delcassian Publishing, not by Mr. Curtin. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Dalcassian Publishing Company, as the name would suggest, is the publisher, not the author. I did this previously with 1st Maccabees with little issue. I am simply looking to do the same again.

  As mentioned in other conversations with EncycloPetey, no claim to its public domain standing has been made. I am the proprietor and I am looking to grant a release for it just the same as I have in the past. I granted its publication noted by Google books, found here: https://books.google.com/books/about/On_Fate.html?id=6pKpEAAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description. It publication date was 2/1/2023, not 2022.

  The accurate issue is getting the directive I need to sign the release that wikisource needs for its legal protection for this document. I would appreciate some direction on this account. HerbiePocket (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment There is a one-to-one relationship between the contributor and the modern day translations of the works, some of which have OTRS permissions. For me, there is no evidence that these are published translations, with no source. If they are the work of the contributor then get them moved to Translation: ns. If there is evidence that they are published, then let us record that detail and have OTRS. Have you approached the contributor about OTRS permission for the work? — billinghurst sDrewth 00:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  For the Translation namespace we'd need the text of the original being translated, in compliance with our guidelines. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

A VRT volunteer who is (unlike me) familiar with Wikisource should take a look at ticket:2023052510012692. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Fragment III

The following discussion is closed:

The copyright issue is resolved through VRT confirmation of a compatible license. However, the text is still an excerpt, not previously published, and a Wikisource translation without a scan and transcription in the original language. This is a hole in our translations policy: it is literally impossible for this translation to comply with the policy, except by being professionally published and then licensed compatibly. Note that as there is no copyright issue there is no bar to temporarily undeleting the text during any future undeletion discussion.

According to information at Author:Dermot P. Curtin, this translation was published in 2023. Without evidence that it is in public domain, or under another Wikisource-compatible license, this work cannot be hosted here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment There is a one-to-one relationship between the contributor and the modern day translations of the works, some of which have OTRS permissions. For me, there is no evidence that these are published translations, with no source. If they are the work of the contributor then get them moved to Translation: ns. If there is evidence that they are published, then let us record that detail and have OTRS. Have you approached the contributor about OTRS permission for the work? — billinghurst sDrewth 00:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  For the Translation namespace we'd need the text of the original being translated, in compliance with our guidelines. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Billinghurst, @EncycloPetey: VRT has received ticket:2023062610009924 concerning this, and it is under review. Best regards, ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 19:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  It appears that the ticket was closed successfully as recorded on Chronicle. The translation is released under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 01:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Index:The Soviet Socialist Constitution of december 5, 1936.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Kept per 廣九直通車's excellent analysis in the below discussion.

Queried, as the sourcing suggests this may be a third-party translation, with no further information on the translator. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment As the file's existence spreads across 3 different copyright legislation, the following analysis is a little bit cumbersome:

1. The file is an anonymous translation of the Soviet Constitution published in 1942 published by the Russia Today Society, without a copyright notice. The basic rule is that, as a work without copyright notice, if it was in British public domain before 1 January 1996, it is also within American public domain per {{PD-1996}}, and vice versa.
2. As an anonymous work published in 1956, the British Copyright Act 1911 governed the file's copyright. As the 1911 Act mentioned nothing about anonymous works, I assume it would have been copyrighted perpetually (because we don't know the author(s)) if the 1911 Act was never repealed.
3. Paragraph 1(b) of the Second Schedule of the Copyright Act 1956 provided that an anonymous work enters the public domain after 50 years. Paragraph 45(1) of the Seventh Schedule of the 1956 Act provided that . . . the provisions of this Act apply in relation to things existing at the commencement of those provisions . . . This means that the file would enter British public domain in 1992, if the 1956 Act was never repealed. This statement nevertheless holds, as we have the final provision.
4. Lastly, with the Current Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 was enacted, paragraph 12(3)(a) of Schedule 1 states that copyright continues to subsist in all anonymous works until it expired according to the 1956 Act, i.e., it confirms the file would enter British public domain.

So in conclusion,  Keep for {{PD-1996}}.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@廣九直通車: Thank you very much for this comprehensive analysis. Very very much appreciated! Xover (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Ey Reqîb

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio. No plausible indication of compatible licensing.

No source and no license provided, most probably copypasted from https://www.kdp.se/lder.html . Besides that, the non-English parts are out of en.ws scope. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It is a 2005 work, so it is a bold statement to say it is from any particular source. With regard to the non-English components, there are many works from that period that don't meet our current guidelines, and to this point we have essentially left them as is. They have been legacy acceptable as they were accepted at that time to the processes that existed at the time, AND our policy hasn't changed to make them out of scope. Without evidence to the contrary, I suggest that we continue to honour that stand and that process. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Pact of Umar

The following discussion is closed:

First published with a copyright notice, but not properly renewed.

The text seems to match exactly that of Bernard Lewis's Islam, from the Prophet Muhammad to the Capture of Constantinople Vol. II p. 217-19, 1974 and seems translated by Lewis (see IA for a 1987 reprint that claims "translated by Lewis" and copyright by Lewis. 1974. MarkLSteadman (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The original post says that it was taken from [7] which has the note "[This was a from hand out at an Islamic History Class at the University of Edinburgh in 1979. Source of translation not given.]" - so if the translation was Lewis's it seems that was a copyvio.

That website also states "Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use." -- Beardo (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The website does list an alternate translation from The Jew in the Medieval World: A Sourcebook, 315-1791 p. 13 by Jacob Marcus Google Books and claims non-renewal, if someone can dig up a scan ... MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• I’ve requested the book, I should hopefully be able to scan it with a week or two. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  That is still a 1938 publication which would mean copyright expiry in 2034, so I don't see that as a viable alternative unless printed in the US. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  Being published by the "Union of American Hebrew congregations" sounds like it could be a US publication. -- Beardo (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  • billinghurst, Beardo: I just picked up the book; I might be able to scan it in tomorrow. It was published by the Union of American Hebrew Congregations in Cincinnati in 1938, with a valid copyright notice. The copyright was not renewed. The book contains a translation of the “Pact of Omar,” which is similar in form to the text given here (but a different translation, of course). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

    @TE(æ)A,ea. If you still have it, can we scan back Khazar Correspondence too? MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

    • MarkLSteadman: I’m scanning the whole book right now, actually. Chapter 46 is “The Medieval Jewish Kingdom of the Chazars, 740–1259,” which contains a short introductory note, the two translations currently at “Khazar Correspondence,” and a bibliography. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

      Brilliant! Looks like a valuable resource to add but I know it might be an effort to scan the whole thing. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

      • MarkLSteadman: It’s too big to upload locally, so I uploaded it at IA (it’s just a PDF). As for copyright, it was published in the United States with a copyright notice, but that copyright was not renewed. Thus, it is PD-US-not renewed and can be uploaded on Wikimedia Commons. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

        TE(æ)A,ea. I ran a straightforward PDF to DJVU conversion (pdf2djvu with no special parameters) and was pleased to find it reduced the file size to ~30% of the PDF's size, making it small enough to upload with the wizard. Nice work with the scan! See: file:The Jew in the Medieval World.djvu -Pete (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

        @Everyone: when doing research like this (looking for renewals, verifying the author is anonymous, lack of publication somewhere or when, etc.) it would be extremely helpful to briefly describe the research as evidence that we have made a good faith effort to determine the relevant datum. This is mainly relevant when "proving a negative", but in those cases documenting that we have performed diligent research to make probable that whatever it was didn't exist both makes it easier for re-users to have faith in our determination and reduces our liability if it later turns out that we made a mistake or new information comes to light. The research you all do is extremely valuable and it's a shame if it only exists in your head and can't benefit others asking the same questions. In this particular case it could be as simple as "I searched X, Y, and C for the title and the author's name and found no trace of a renewal. To be certain I also searched for the original registration number and likewise found nothing." For files hosted on Commons documenting this is also a shield against deletions based solely on c:COM:PRP. Xover (talk) 13:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Waiting For A Visa

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyvio.

Waiting For A Visa (1990) by B. R. Ambedkar has been contributed without a license. It is a posthumous work, published in 1990, for an author who died in 1956, so I don't seen that it fits within the existing criteria of PMD + 70 for unpublished works. I don't see that we have any clear knowledge about posthumous works published in India being put into the public domain, our copyright tag is stated around works published prior to death. Needs some research and confirmation. courtesy ping @Yashwinusa123: — billinghurst sDrewth 11:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

My understanding based on {{PD-India}} is that since the author died in 1956 and the work was published in 1990, which is less than 60 years after 1956, the copyright term in India is based still on the author's death year. This means that the work's Indian copyright expired in 2017, so the work does not get a URAA exception, and will be in copyright in the US until 2052. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 01:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

If unpublished, then it won't be 95 years, it would be PD-70, so that would be 2027. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

There's special rules for works published in 1978-2002; they get the greater of 70 years after the death of author or until 2048.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Extra note (If I may interject): This work is legally available for free to download on the Indian Ministry of External Affairs government website, in "Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches: Vol. 12"

Not sure if this fact has any bearing on Wikisource's acceptance policies, but I thought to let you know just in case. Yashwinusa123 (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Yashwinusa123: This is not about legal or illegal, it is about the rights to do so, the "copyright", and complying with the rights as expressed in the law(s) of the country hosting the work. Plus hosting a work can be done under many means and agreements, for example, Creative Commons. Even then sites can make errors and host works that they should not be hosting.

The copyright law that English Wikisource follows is that of the US, and solely the US; compared to Commons which requires both the US and the country of the published work. We are suggesting that in the US the work is still under copyright, and will be until 70 years after the author's death, ie. 2027. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Note that Prosfilaes and billinghurst named two different dates above, 2027 and 2048, and haven't yet resolved that difference. I have no insight one way or the other, but suggest it would be worthwhile to resolve it and leave a clear note. -Pete (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

https://guides.library.cornell.edu/copyright/publicdomain is the classic chart here. The appropriate line is "1978 to 2002 / Created before 1978 and first published in a country that is a signatory to the Berne Convention or other 17 USC § 104A(h)(3) treaties / The greater of 70 years after the death of author (or if work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication) or 31 December 2047".--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Basically, instead of dumping a whole bunch of unpublished works with potentially infinite copyright duration into the public domain or starting the clock at their death, it made unpublished works by authors as if the author died in 1977, provided they published before 2002, to give them a chance and incentive to publish.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Index:Statesman's Year-Book 1913.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

There is no reason to believe this is protected by copyright, and the research in this thread has not indicated otherwise.

I'm querying this is PD in the UK (original country of publication) on the following basis. (By date it's PD-US regardless)

The first compiler is identified, that's not the issue. The second compiler is an M. Epstein, and I'm not finding much detail on them on some initial searches.

In 1913 they are listed as having a P.H.d (which means at that date they would have had to be at least 30 (certainly no younger than 25)?

http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/7th-july-1944/22/the-annual-register-1943-edited-by-dr-m-epstein-lo lists a Dr. M. Epstien as editor of a statistical gazette in 1944. (At that date they are likey in their early 60's/late 50's)

In order for their contribution to SYB to be out of copyright in the UK, They would have had to have died by 1953, not implausible given Brtish life expectancy at the time. However, it's also plausible that they lived till the late 1960's.

I am therefore asking that the file supporting this Index be localised, at least until there's more information on the second compiler/editor. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I kept researching, Some more information:-

In the 1921 edition of SYB there are listed as a fellow of Royal Geographical Society.

So doing a search on that basis yielded: https://archive.org/details/listofhonoraryme00royauoft/page/30/mode/1up

Giving a first name of Mortimer - According to FreeBMD a Mortimer Epstein died in Willesden, in 1946. which ties up with the address given in the 'fellows' list in the IA source.

Can someone check this and if confirmed I can close this as a "keep on commons" reasonably quickly. :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Index:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Copyvio, deleted just to be undeleted 11 months hence. Please do someone remind me!

This was renewed:-

COOLIDGE, CALVIN.

  Autobiography. © 9Nov29; A15686.
    Grace Goodhue Coolidge (W);
    16Jan57; R185051.

so can't be on Wikisource. I will potentially be raising a DR at Commons based on the outcome of the discussion here. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• Delete. Clearly copyrighted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

 Delete, but undelete in 2025 PseudoSkull (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Bleh. I hate deleting these, with barely even 11 months to go until copyright expires. It feels like such a technicality. Oh well. Here are the affected pages.

pages to undelete on new years day 2025

The Autobiography of Calvin Coolidge (1929) The Autobiography of Calvin Coolidge (1929)/I. Scenes of My Childhood The Autobiography of Calvin Coolidge (1929)/II. Seeking an Education The Autobiography of Calvin Coolidge (1929)/III. The Law and Politics The Autobiography of Calvin Coolidge (1929)/IV. In National Politics The Autobiography of Calvin Coolidge (1929)/V. On Entering and Leaving the Presidency The Autobiography of Calvin Coolidge (1929)/VI. Some of the Duties of the President The Autobiography of Calvin Coolidge (1929)/VII. Why I Did Not Choose to Run Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/1 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/2 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/3 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/4 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/5 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/6 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/7 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/8 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/9 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/10 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/11 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/12 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/13 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/14 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/15 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/16 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/17 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/18 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/19 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/20 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/21 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/22 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/23 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/24 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/25 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/26 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/27 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/28 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/29 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/30 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/31 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/32 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/33 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/34 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/35 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/36 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/37 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/38 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/39 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/40 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/41 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/42 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/43 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/44 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/45 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/46 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/47 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/48 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/49 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/50 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/51 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/52 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/53 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/54 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/55 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/56 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/57 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/58 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/59 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/60 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/61 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/62 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/63 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/64 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/65 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/66 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/67 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/68 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/69 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/70 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/71 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/72 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/73 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/74 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/75 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/76 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/77 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/78 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/79 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/80 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/81 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/82 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/83 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/84 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/85 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/86 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/87 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/88 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/89 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/90 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/91 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/92 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/93 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/94 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/95 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/96 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/97 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/98 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/99 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/100 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/101 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/102 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/103 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/104 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/105 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/106 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/107 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/108 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/109 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/110 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/111 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/112 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/113 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/114 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/115 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/116 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/117 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/118 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/119 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/120 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/121 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/122 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/123 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/124 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/125 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/126 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/127 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/128 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/129 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/130 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/131 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/132 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/133 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/134 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/135 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/136 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/137 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/138 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/139 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/140 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/141 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/142 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/143 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/144 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/145 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/146 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/147 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/148 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/149 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/150 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/151 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/152 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/153 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/154 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/155 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/156 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/157 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/158 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/159 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/160 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/161 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/162 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/163 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/164 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/165 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/166 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/167 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/168 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/169 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/170 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/171 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/172 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/173 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/174 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/175 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/176 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/177 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/178 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/179 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/180 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/181 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/182 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/183 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/184 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/185 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/186 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/187 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/188 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/189 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/190 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/191 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/192 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/193 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/194 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/195 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/196 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/197 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/198 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/199 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/200 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/201 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/202 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/203 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/204 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/205 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/206 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/207 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/208 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/209 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/210 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/211 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/212 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/213 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/214 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/215 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/216 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/217 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/218 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/219 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/220 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/221 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/222 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/223 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/224 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/225 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/226 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/227 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/228 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/229 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/230 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/231 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/232 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/233 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/234 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/235 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/236 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/237 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/238 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/239 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/240 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/241 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/242 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/243 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/244 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/245 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/246 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/247 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/248 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/249 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/250 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/251 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/252 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/253 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/254 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/255 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/256 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/257 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/258 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/259 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/260 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/261 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/262 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/263 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/264 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/265 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/266 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/267 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/268 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/269 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/270 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/271 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/272 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/273 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/274 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/275 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/276 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/277 Page:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu/278 Index:The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.djvu

Please someone remind me to undelete these as early as possible next year. --Xover (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Wild Weasel mission teamwork

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted, and annotations removed from related pages so that only the transcripts remain. All of them are also excerpts (the transcriber has removed bits they thought boring, partly to get the audio files under an arbitrary 20MB limit), silently replaces place names with e.g. "xxx", and inserts descriptions of non-verbal audio as if it were speech. In other words, these should be deleted entirely as being in conflict with multiple policies, but I don't have time to open the discussion just now.

The text is an article written by retired US Air Force lieutenant colonel Bill Sparks. As he was retired, this text is not produced in the course of his military service, so {{PD-USGov}} do not apply. The text also doesn't have a year and source, which makes it almost impossible to trace it's copyright status. The text should therefore be deleted for having no free permission. If additional information can be given, I'm glad to withdraw this deletion request.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks like this is original content added by the original contributor on Sparks' behalf. Unfortunately, this is out of scope regardless, so  Delete along with all the other commentary added to the Wild Weasel audio transcripts (Special:PrefixIndex/Wild Weasel mission) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

A revision of subspecies structure of Dorcadion (Cribridorcadion) scabricolle

The following discussion is closed:

Kept. The tagging with a compatible license seems to be sufficient for the majority of participants in the discussion, and there is no directly contrary evidence.

Link: A revision of subspecies structure of Dorcadion (Cribridorcadion) scabricolle (Dalman, 1817) (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae)

User:Maxscheller has recently tried to add a work by M. A. Lazarev from https://zenodo.org/record/6490110 . The edit was caught by a spam filter, which is easy to solve, but there is another problem: The source page says it has been released under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, but at the same time it contains a PDF version of the work which says "© Lazarev M. A." and "© International Academy of Education". Can we consider the work to be released under a free license or not? -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello! This work is free access! Open access! Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International is even listed at https://zenodo.org/record/6490110 (Zenodo). That is, legal status: protected by copyright, but released into the public domain by the copyright owner. This is common, and such works are considered to be released under a free license. Maxscheller (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• Jan Kameníček: “CC licenses are copyright licenses, and depend on the existence of copyright to work.” So there can be a copyright notice on the work, while a CC license exists. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed. All freely licensed works are inherently protected by copyright; otherwise they would be simply public domain (or copyvio, of course). The term "copyleft" that some favour comes from "Copyright, but we take a left turn where the law intended us to turn right". That is, copyright law is designed to limit what others can do, but "copyleft" licenses are designed to use copyright law to extend what others can do. The reasoning is perhaps most obvious in CC licenses with the ShareAlike (SA) flag: it not only permits some to use a work (any old copyright license dies that), but it also forces the licensee to license their own additions (derivative works) under the same terms. Xover (talk) 09:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Can we trust that the copyright holder was the one to upload it to Zenodo under a CC-BY license? If so, I see no issue with this —Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a pity they didn't include information about the licensing in the original publication (i.e. so that it was visible in the PDF), but Zenodo is a CERN-hosted and EU-funded research repository and I think that absent red flags or contradictory evidence we should take the tagging there as reliable. Xover (talk) 09:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, based on the opinions above, I agree with accepting the work as elligible to be hosted here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

 

(Below comments were moved from a duplicate deletion discussion, which was created unaware of this discussion)

There is a copyright statement on page 2 of this book. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 Delete until I see an explicit statement by the author, or somewhere in the work, that a CC BY SA license was intended to override this copyright, as has been the case for some works in the past. @Maxscheller, @Jan.Kamenicek: Any thoughts? SnowyCinema (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Note that at Commons, the file is noted to be VRT-verified. I don't know exactly who they contacted, and am wondering if doing a deletion request at Commons is a better idea than this. SnowyCinema (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment I see that there was an active discussion already here, however there was no notice that this discussion existed either on the Index or Mainspace page. When there is an active discussion, please ensure that the subject of the discussion is so labelled. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

This would seem to be an academic paper uploaded by the actual author of the paper concerned, that has a VRTS ticket at Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Index:Potter’s field monument at City Honors High School, Buffalo, New York — 20200707.jpg

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted as copyrighted.

This monument was erected recently—sometime between 2008 (listed on the monument) and 2020 (when this photograph was taken). Thus, the publication of the text (in the form of the monument) did not require a copyright notice, but was automatically subject to copyright. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

 Keep — The monument mostly contains bare statements of fact, along with a concluding statement that’s very generic, with something in its format included in thousands of similar monuments. So, this would count as PD-text. And according to Seal of Buffalo, New York and File:Seal of Buffalo, New York.svg, the current seal of the city of Buffalo (which is used on the monument) was taken from a 19th century version of the logo, and is thus in the public domain. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• • PseudoSkull: I actually wasn’t thinking about the seal, but the choice of three-dimensionality might also count as copyrightable matter (even though it is an interpretation of a work in the public domain), but I think that that is a closer call. As to your PD-text, while the monument’s text contains statements of fact, the wording of those statements might (in my mind) be sufficiently creative to constitute copyrightable subject matter. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: I will admit that that’s a possibility, but the statements seem pretty generic and uncreative to me, in both a legal and a critical sense. My reasoning for saying that is that they’re fairly simple sentences; they give names and numbers, and a very basic explanation of how those names and numbers relate to each other, and it’d be very easy to conjure the same sentence with different variables in many other context.

Although, I’d be interested to see if there are court rulings on similar materials, so we could make comparisons to this specific monument. And my opinion may change if the evidence is sufficient in that regard. (Although it’d be pretty sad if this is copyrightable, since it in theory would limit someone’s ability to make many statements of fact legally.) PseudoSkull (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

 Delete. That text is not a mere listing of facts so it is fairly clearly in the realm of what is protected by copyright. The original photograph is also in danger of a challenge on Commons as a derivative work of the monument, but that’s not a relevant issue here per se.

But given this is so borderline for copyrightability, it would be useful if a couple of more people could chime in on where they fall down on that. Xover (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

 Delete Imo, the text does not really just state a bare fact, it plays with pathos and touches human emotions, so I do not really see it as PD inelligible. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek, @Xover, @TE(æ)A,ea.: I've started a discussion at Commons, just so you're aware (and my opinion on it has changed since my initial vote): c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Potter's field monument at City Honors High School, Buffalo, New York - 20200707.jpg. SnowyCinema (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Index:Oxford Book of English Verse 1250-1918.djvu

The following discussion is closed:

Kept, there is some evidence that it was published in the US within 30 days of its British publication, and so it is in PD in the US as the copyright was not renewed.

Should be localised, unless shown that New York and Toronto publication were within 30 days. Commons file is currently tagged as not renewed, but in attempting to link authors, I've found a few like Blunden (British and active until the 1970's). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

There's no reason to think that New York and Toronto publication weren't within 30 days; Oxford Press published in multiple cities exactly for that, so they would get Berne and US protection.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Bleh. Actually there is. This is a second or later edition of a work first published in 1900. First newspaper notice is in The Standard for 7 November 1900, where it is listed under "yesterday's new books" (i.e. 6 November). First US newspaper notice is in The New York Times for 8 December 1900 in an ad from OUP claiming it as "just published". This on the face of it evidence that it was first published in the UK and published in the US just over 30 days later.

However, the ad appears in the NYT on a Saturday (which had greater circulation than weekday issues, especially for advertising books), and it is an ad for multiple titles from OUP (so not specific for this work or its publication date). That puts it just inside the 30 days limit. The evidence is also a terminus ante quem: it can't have been published later, but it could have been published arbitrarily long prior. Considering even the absolutely worst case assumption here only puts us 2 days over the limit, I am comfortable assuming the ad came at least two days after actual publication (you want your book to actually be on sale and in bookstores when the ad runs) and that we can therefore consider this to be a US work for copyright purposes.

Prosfilaes makes the same assumption (albeit without this evidence), so if someone disagrees with this assessment they'd better speak up quick or I'll close this as keep. Xover (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

 Keep --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Works of Noel Rosa

The following discussion is closed:

While it is not impossible that these texts are compatible with our licensing policy, there is far too little evidence available to make a plausible argument that this is the case.

There are two authors' copyright involved: Noel Rosa for the Portugese-language originals and Kirsten Weinoldt for the English-language translations.

There is a claim by Quadell from 2008 on the talk page that I wrote to the traslator, Kirsten Weinoldt, requesting that she freely license her translations to Noel Rosa's lyrics. She kindly agreed, and I forwarded the e-mails to the OTRS people. They should confirm with a ticket number soon., but no VRT (neé OTRS) ever materialised. Absent a valid OTRS ticket there is no evidence to suggest the translations are compatibly licensed. Even with a ticket one would need to double-check whether the translator had the right to license the translations since they are sourced from Brazzil magazine, and magazines routinely include exclusivity in their contracts with contributors or commission works-for-hire for things like translations so that they own the rights outright.

There is a claim on the author page, added by Billinghurst in 2013, that Wikisource has received permission to host these works, adn each work should be checked for the specifics of its licence. This statement is somewhat ambivalent, but most likely refers to the claim by Quadell on the associated talk page and thus both suffers the same flaws and would in any case only cover the translations.

The copyright in the Portugese-language originals (of which the translations are derivative works) may conceivably have lapsed due to a provision of Brazilian copyright law that renders public domain the works of authors that die without heirs. But the information provided in this discussion makes it unlikely that Rosa did die without heirs in the legal sense, and this provision of copyright law is in any case not well understood and may be subject to significant problems in application due to Brazilian precedent.

Any future undeletion request for these texts should endeavour to present other arguments or new information.

The translation licenses are fine, but it's not clear to me whether/why the underlying works are PD. Some works don't have years; those that do range from 1932–1936. Do these qualify as "cinematographic, phonographic, photographic [or] applied arts works" (from commons:Template:PD-Brazil-URAA)? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 02:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I see this in Wikipedia: "Apart from expired copyright and unknown authors, works in the public domain include those from authors who have died and left no successors." MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@MarkLSteadman Thank you for checking! Do we have reason to think that applies to Rosa? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 05:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

He apparently died fatherless, young and estranged. But I don't know nearly enough about Brazilian law to confirm what that requires. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

As somebody currently navigating these waters IRL, it seems to me that probate law varies widely in different U.S. states, and surely even moreso in various countries. The statement that happens to be on Wikipedia (which is surely further attributable to an authoritative source..?) seems like a simplification, I believe often a proper successor would be determined by a legal process highly tuned to the specifics of the individual, even if there wasn't a proper will to rely on, or obvious traditional heirs. In short I doubt that any principle as simple and convenient as that cited from the Wikipedia page is reliable. -Pete (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

From III. 45. "45. In addition to the works in respect of which the protection of the economic rights

has expired, the following shall pass into the public domain:

I. the works of authors deceased without heir;

II. the works of unknown authors, subject to the legal protection of ethnic and

traditional lore." https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/125393 MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

But apparently under Brazilian law transfer to the wife is necessary and happens by default so it would seem that Lindaura Martins would therefore be the heir and copyright owner (and she lived the URAA date). MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

If I understand this all correctly, it seems that (a) we would need pretty definitive evidence that copyright lapsed, and (b) the info you have uncovered strongly suggests that copyright has not lapsed. To me this seems like a clear  Delete for anything published after 1929 (which might be all of them).

I'll note that Billinghurst added a note in 2013 claiming that Wikisource has "permission" to host the works, without a link, or OTRS reference, etc. Billinghurst can you elaborate? Seems like something you'd get right, but the lack of evidence, or acknowledgment on the page that "permission for Wikisource" is not sufficient for hosting here, is tough to parse. Does it go beyond the talk page comment from Quadell? Seems clear that it would need to, to establish the copyright status of the originals. -Pete (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

And if there was indeed an OTRS ticket opened, maybe somebody with access could check if that ticket still exists, and whether these things were investigated, and any useful conclusions reached, there? -Pete (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

We have no VRT (neé OTRS) volunteers on enWS so you'd need to hunt down someone elsewhere, and without a ticket number finding any such email could be a tall order. That the permission and attendant ticket number was not noted on-wiki almost certainly means there was no acceptable permission recorded. Xover (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I very much agree, but the unequivocal assertion by billinghurst seems significant. I know him to be careful about such things. Hoping he will comment before this is closed. -Pete (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

WIPO Copyright Treaty

The following discussion is closed:

Anthere, who is a Wikimedian in Residence at the WIPO, used their contacts there to get the following statement from the WIPO Office of the Legal Counsel: In accordance with WIPO’s open access policy, WIPO’s online content and publications, such as the publication referred to in our email exchange below, are made available by WIPO under the Terms of Use of its website, pursuant to which, except as otherwise provided, the Creative Commons (CC) CC BY 4.0 license applies.

They appear unlikely to wish to update their terms of service to make this clarification for all content pre-2017 (when the WIPO adopted an open access policy), but based on their emailed statement it would be reasonable for us (and Commons) to accept a CC BY 4.0 license for any material from wipo.int that does not either contain an explicit claim of other licensing or where other factors suggest special circumstances may apply.

The WIPO Copyright Treaty, as the specific example addressed by the WIPO Office of the Legal Counsel, is definitely covered by a CC BY 4.0 license grant.

Is template {{PD-UN}} appropriate here? Although WIPO is one of the 15 specialized agencies of the United Nations, the treaty appears to be a document issued WITHOUT a UN symbol. And according to the terms of use of WIPO, CC license is only applicable to those documents published as of November 2016. Teetrition (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Teetrition: WIPO is part of the UN. It is a public domain document for our purposes as an equivalent to a gov-edict of WIPO as part of the UN. Happy for a better suggestion for an applicable licence or a wording update, though you couldn't possibly be saying that it is not able to be reproduced. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Even though it was published in 1996, if WIPO the document under a cc-by-4.0 as of 2016, then we can re-license it. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

This is an interesting case. UN policy was tightened considerably since the text of our template (see the equivalent templates at Commons; we need to update here), and fairly clearly does not apply to this treaty.

The WIPO's own Open access policy explicitly only applies to post-2016 publications (which this treaty predates by a decade). As a negotiated treaty the most reasonable author for copyright purposes is the WIPO itself, alternately one could view it as a collective work of the contracting parties (in which case we would need unanimous consent for licensing, in which case… forget it). Since the WIPO is not itself a competent legislative body, and the treaty is not self-executing (it was implemented in the US through compatible regulations included in the DMCA, not adopted as-is), it is not itself an edict of government. In other words, the only path to hosting it is if the WIPO itself considers it to fall ex post facto under their Open access policy, or otherwise licenses it under a compatible license.

In view of that I'm trying to get a request for clarification to them through a volunteer that is or was recently Wikimedian in Residence at WIPO, and failing that through their other contact channels. I think the odds are actually pretty good that they'll considered this covered by the Open access policy, but we'll need confirmation of that. Xover (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The Times/1939/Obituary/Arthur Irwin Dasent

The following discussion is closed:

Deleted; public domain status not proven.

Published in 1939, so does not qualify for {{PD-US}}. Might qualify for no/defective notice or no renewal? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 05:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

If we have some evidence, that the London Times was distributed in the US too (which I believe it was), I think it can be considered to be in the public domain in the US because of the lacking copyright notice. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Possibly, but I am very reluctant to make such assumptions without clear evidence and significant supporting research. Xover (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The copyright term under the 1988 act for works of unknown authorship was 50 years so it was in the public domain in the UK from 1990 until being revived by the extension in 1995 to +70 again on 1996-01-01, which is the URAA date, before finally expiring in 2010. That means it isn't covered under {{PD-1996}}. MarkLSteadman (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Right, so if it's a UK work it was restored to pub. +95 (1939 + 95 = 2034) in the US by the URAA. But if it was simultaneously published in the US (within 30 days) it is a US work subject to US requirements and ineligible for restoration under the URAA. So the questions are 1) was it published in the US within 30 days, 2) did it contain a correctly formed copyright notice in the US, and, if so, 3) was the copyright renewed. I'm not sure how we would determine #1 to any reasonable level of certainty without pretty in-depth research. #2 should be possible to determine through finding a scan of a copy held in a US archive, and #3, if needed, is the usual renewal search (except in periodicals instead of books, but...). I don't think it is unlikely, per se, I'm just unwilling to make the necessary assumptions absent actual evidence. Xover (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

So, not having a proof of the work being in the PD in the US, I think we should consider it as potentially copyrighted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ---Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)